V-"<^^^>^ %'^^^^\^^ %'^fr^\<f V-^^f^\V 














v-^^ 









^oV^ 





























0^ 



.' .^^"-_ V 



* ^'?-' 



^o. 




























^'-. *bv*' .■^^•. "•*'^o^ : 

















4 o 






v^" 









»°'-*.. 



.*' 



THK GcUAVl^^ 



MYLES STAN DISH 



ox HER PILGRIN4S. 



BY re:v. e. j. v. huiginn. 



BOONVIIXE, N. Y. 
HERALD -AND TOURIST 8TKAM I'UINTINO IJOUSK. 

1892. 







A. Captain's Ilill, the site of Stanilicli iiioiiiimciit. I?. Mrs. Tliomas Cliandler's. C Morton's 
Hole. 1). GeorKo I'Vaiik Kydcr's. K. (Jraveyanl where Htandlsh is biiricil. (J. Bayley's (Corner, 
to the west of wliich is FiTnundo WadsworthV. 11. Hull's Corner. K. Harden Hill. L. Present 
graveyard, in iisc since ]7.s:i, A. D. M. Mill IJrook, on the road to Duck Hi/I and Marshdeld. 



r-'.H 



^A^ 



The Graves of Myles Standish and Other Pilgrims, 



BY REV. E. J. V. HUIGINN. 



CHAPTER I. 

Writers of fiction and writers of hisli^ry 
have said that tlie grave of Myles 8lundisli, 
tlie famous Captain of Plymouth, is un- 
known and must forever remain unknown. 
This we might believe, if we knew that 
the writers alluded to had examined all the 
evidence in existence about the matter. 
But it is certain they did not do so, and 
now for the first time evidence will be pro- 
duced that will place the identity of the 
grave of Standish beyond all possibility of 
dispute. This evidence is taken from the 
town records of Duxbury and from other 
ancient documents, from a thorough exam 
ination of the places referred to in these 
documents, and from living witnesses of 
memorials of ilie Captain's grave. 

Ti is acknowledged on all hands that 
Standish died in f6o6 and that he was 
buried in Duxbury. He died on the 3d of 
(October, "a man full of years and honored 
by his generation." Secretary Nathaniel 
Morton, who died on the 29th of June, 
1G85, in the seventy -third year of his age, 
records of Standish, that "he growing 
very ancient became sick of the stone or 
StranguUion, whereof after his suffering 
of much dolorous pain, he fell asleep m 
the Lord and was honorably buried at 
Duxbury." This is universally admitted, 
that Standish was buried in Duxbury, and 
this is in accordance with his will which 
reads, "My will is that out of my whole 
estate my funeral charges to be taken out 
and my body to be buried in a decent man- 
ner, and if I die in Duxburrow, my body to 
be laid as near as conveniently may be to my 
two dear daughters, Lora Standish, my 
daughter, and Mary Standish, my daugh- 
ter-in-law." 

Tradition is at one with history in say- 
ing that Standish is buried in Duxbury. 

The question is. Where is his grave in 
Duxbury? 

Mr. Justin Winsor refiects the uncer- 
tainty of those who make superficial 
searches and trust too much to conject- 



ure and supposition. In his History of 
Duxbury, VVinsor says, "No stone marks 
the resting place of his ashes and we must 
seek in vain the place wiicre reposes what 
was mortal of the immortal StaHdisli. He 
was probably, however, buried on his 
farm, or perhaps in the old burying 
ground in that vicinity at Harden Hill." 

Mr. Winsor's suppositions concerning 
the burial place of Stand isli and the early 
Pilgrims in Duxbury are without the least 
foundation. When speaking of the death 
of the Rev. Ralph Partridge, the first 
minister of Duxbur}-, Mr. Winsor says 
that he was "probably interred in the first 
burial place of the town which was a knoll 
in the south-eastern part at Harden Hill, 
as it is called. If any stones were ever 
placed here they have since been de- 
stroyed by the ravages of time or other- 
wise as none at the present time exist. 
Probably, however, none were erected, 
in hopes of concealing from the Indians 
their loss by death, and consequent weak- 
ness; or in the earliest periods the diffi- 
culty of procuring stones from England 
was so great that few if any could have 
been placed here. 

"This was probably u.sed as a place of 
sepulture for about sixty years and here 
were doubtless buried most of the found- 
ers of the town and church. Here prob- 
ably rest the remains of Standish, Alden, 
Collier, Partridge and others, whose mem- 
ory we delight to cherish but whose graves 
must forever remain unknown. 

"We have the most positive evidence 
that there was a burying-ground here. 
Some years ago while a sloop was build- 
ing in this vicinity, there were found the 
bones of a female and an infant buried 
together. About the close of the century 
a small slof)p grounded on the marsh near 
by in a severe gale, and a party of work- 
men proceeded to get her off. While here 
they discovered in the bank lately washed 
by the sea, the appearance of a cofiin, and 
on closer examination they perceived the 
nails, though all were in a very decayed 



state. On the shore beneath there were 
found three skulls and several bones, ap- 
parently of the thi^h. The teeth in one 
were perfect and in one there were two. 
On one there was some light sandy hair. 
The bank here was washed away some 
twenty feet within fifty years. Some, 
however, incline to the belief that this was 
an Indian yard, but the fact that it was 
near the first church and other consider- 
ations inlluence me to believe that it was 
an English burial place. There were, fifty 
or seventy years ago, traditional reports 
that there was a burying-ground a short 
distance to the west of the Methodist Epis- 
copal church, and Esc^uire Sprague, when 
plowing, used always on that account to 
leave undisturbed this portion. Major 
Alden was accustomed to observe that he 
believed John Alden, the Pilgrim, was 
buried here and that tliis was the tirst 
burying-ground, and the one at Harden 
Hill clill was an Indian one. ll'jinevcr, 
there is no jjositivc evidence on this indnt 
either incy. 

"Mr. Partridge preached in a very small 
building in the south eastern part of the 
town near the water, and tradition now 
marks its site. This building probably 
stood for about seventy years and in it 
preached the tirst three pastors of the 
church." 

We have quoted all this from Mr. VViu- 
sor's History of Duxbury to show how in- 
accurate was his information, and how 
many conjectures and i)robabilities he 
adojited to ex])lain his theory that Staud- 
ish was buried on Harden Hill, or on his 
own farm. You will remark that Mr. 
Winspr at times says "probably" blandish 
was buried on his farm or "perhaps" on 
Harden Hill, and again says, "probably he 
was buried on Harden Hill, and finally 
says the tirst church was near Harden Hill, 
and therefore there was a burying-ground 
there and an English one at that. Mr. 
Winsor's facts and conjectures were hastily 
gathered when he was a young man on his 
vacation in Duxbury. He had, at that 
time, no training in antiquarian or arch- 
H'ological researches or he would have 
seen that in his own book he has the most 
convincing evidence to prove that all 
tliese conjectures are groundless as to the 
site of the old church and the old grave- 
yard in Duxbury. 

Haiden Hill lies on the south-westerly 
coa.st of Du.xbury Bay. north of the creek 
known as Simmons' Creek, and opposite 
or nearly opposite the home of Mr. Ira 
Chandler, wiio lives on the Nook road. 
Harden Hill isat present occupied by Mr. 
William Freeman (whose place is owned 
by Mr. Theodore Freeman), j\Ir. Edgar 
Smilii. Mr. Fdwanl IMarsli, Mr. Gamaliel 
Wadsworth, and Mr. Calvin ymitli. The 
very situation of this iiill would show that 



the early settlers never would have select- 
ed it for the site of a church or for a 
graveyard. It was removed from every 
settler in the town. There was no public 
road to it; in all the records of public roads 
there is no mention of a road to Harden 
Hill, nor is there the least reference to a 
meeting-house there. Now if the m.eetin^- 
house were there, there would be a public 
highway to it, for the meeting-house was 
used for all town's meetings as well as for 
church purposes. There was no highway 
to Harden Hill; there is no reference in 
the deeds and records of the farms in that 
vicinity to a meeting-house as a boundary. 
The hill was altogether remote from the 
centre of population. The Nook people, 
in order to reach the meeting-house, would 
have to cross the marshes lying around at 
the back of Mr. Sylvanus Sampson's, or 
they would have to go around by some pub- 
lic way. There is no public way mentioned 
in any of the deeds of farms or in any of 
the bounds of farms recorded for those 
early times. Besides, the names of the set- 
tlers whose farms are recorded as lying 
around the tirst meeting-house all lived 
round Hall's Corner, near what is known 
as the old cemetery on the road between 
Hall's Corner and Bayley's Corner. To 
place a meeting-house on a hill remote 
from all the settlers in all parts of the 
town would be an absurdity too great to 
lay to the sense of the distinguished men 
who founded Duxbury and established a 
church here. All the settlers about the 
l)lace known as Powder Point, and in all 
the northern part of the town around John 
Alden's homestead and around Mill Brook 
and Duck Hill, would object to puttiisg a 
meeting-house in such an out-of-the-way 
place. 

As to the supposed graveyard at Harden 
Hill, there are no traces of any public 
graveyard there. Excavations were made 
on the hill by several people, and there 
was not a trace of a graveyard, a common 
graveyard. According to Mr. Winsor, 
Harden Hill was used as a graveyard by 
the people of Duxbury for sixty j^ears at 
least. That is, it was used as a graveyard 
imtil about 1G90, a. d. Now there are 
l>ublic records that a large number of peo- 
ple died in Duxbury before that time. 
Besides, the Wadsworth records state that 
eighty four persons had died in Duxbury 
up to 1088, \. D. Now it would be impos- 
sible to bury such a number of i)eople in a 
graveyard on Harden Hill and at this date 
tind no trace of such a number of graves. 
Again, it would be impossible for such a 
graveyard to be washed away by the sea 
and the people of the town not to know it 
and to take care to keep their dead from 
being washed into the sea. This is all the 
more evident when you consider that the 
people of Duxbury were always a sea far- 



ing people having at least the ordinary 
reverence for their dead. It would have 
been impossible for the sea to encroach 
year alter year oo their shore without 
their knowledge, and, having that knowl- 
edge, is it either probable or possible that 
the early settlers would take no steps to 
keep their dead from being carried into 
the bay ? 

Every week the people were at their di- 
vine service; over and over again they car- 
ried their dead there ;fre(iuently they must 
have visited the graves of their former 
friends; their town-meetings were held in 
the meeting-house, and all public business 
was transacted in it; for all these reasons 
and many others that will suggest them- 
selves, the people of Duxbury would have 
had manv and ample opportunities for ob- 
serving the destruction of their graveyard 
by the tides, and such destruction could not 
have taken place without their knowledge 
of it. But there is no tradition of such 
destruction. It must be borne in mind 
that this destruction should have taken 
place between IG06, when Staudish was 
buried, and 1GG5. The graveyard was in 
existence when Standish was buried in 
1G5G, and the records are complete since 
1GG5. Had the graveyard been Avashed 
away since this time, some record of it 
would be left in history or in tradition. 

The assumption that the graveyard was 
washed away was forced on the defenders 
of the Harden Hill theory, because no 
trace of a graveyard is found there now, 
and they justly feel that the absence of an 
entire public graveyard must be accounted 
for in some way. 

Mr. Bradford'made extensive excavations 
and searches on Harden Hill for traces of 
a graveyard. Mr. Bradford was assisted 
by his brother, and after a diligent search, 
digging several feet deep and exploring, 
as sextons know how to explore for graves, 
they could not find one trace of a graveyard 
on Harden Hill. 

As to the bones that were found on Har- 
den Hill, the belief was that they were 
Indian bones, until Mr. Justin Winsor 
stated in his book that they were Caucasian 
bones, from the fact that this supposed 
graveyard "was near the first church." 
That it was not near the first church is ab- 
solutely certain, even according to Mr. 
Winsor's facts. The foundation for his 
supposition is gone and the supposition 
vanishes. 

It is not necessary that we should ac- 
count for the bones found on Harden Hill, 
for they do not in any sense correspond 
with what history, tradition, and Standish's 
own will require to prove that they were 
the bones of the Standish family. How- 
ever, there are many ways of accounting 
for these bones. They uiay have been In- 
dian bones. They may have been tlie bones 



of some shipwrecked peoi)le; tliey may 
have been the bones of jjcople who for some 
reason were buriecl on their own farm. The 
most likely thing of all is that they were the 
bones of the several people who were exe- 
cuted in the town during its early years. 

The bones found were tlie skeletons (jf a 
woman and a child buried with her, "three 
skulls and several bones apparently of tlie 
thigh. The teeth in one were iicrfect, and 
in one there were two. On one there was 
some light sandy hair." The woman and 
the child may have been Alice Busluip 
(the wife of Richard Bushup who lived 
with Love Brewster), and her chikl. They 
were married in 1G44, and she was hanged 
in 1G4S for the murder of her child. Tlic 
other skulls were probably of the other 
persons who at various times were put to 
death or were buried apart for special rea- 
sons. There are records of three or four 
early executions. The swamp-encircled 
sand hill would have been a retired place 
in which to bury such people. 

That these bones could not have been 
the remains of the Staudish family is evi- 
dent. Neither Lora nor Mary Staudish 
was buried with a child. These two young 
womeu were buried near each other. The 
Captain was buried near them. All agree 
that they were buried in tlie graveyard 
attached to the church. Those who would 
bury the Captain at Harden Hill, or on the 
farm of Mrs. Thomas Chandler, claim that 
tlie first church was in one or the_other 
place respectively. On Harden Hill no 
two young women were found near an old 
man. No two remarkable pyramidal stones 
were found marking the place. No tradi- 
tion in the oldest families supported the 
notion that there ever were a graveyard 
and a church on Harden Hill. There never 
was a public road leading to Harden Hill, 
and the public roads all led to the meeting- 
house. There never was any town-land on 
Harden Hill. The church, and the pound, 
and the stocks, were always placed on the 
town-land and in a convenient phice on 
the highways. The farms bounded with 
reference to the old church and the town- 
land, are all located near Hall's Corner and 
towards Bayley's Corner around the old 
cemetery in that vicinity. 

All the evidence in the case is opposed 
to the supposition that Harden Hill was 
the site of the first church and graveyaid. 
Even if we granted Mr. Justin Winsor's 
hypothesis tliat the bones found on Har- 
den Hill were Caucasian bones, this would 
not prove that the first church was there; 
and even if vhe first church was there, 
this would not prove that Standish was 
buried on Harden Hill, as long as the tra- 
ditions of the town prove that he was 
])uricd elsewhere. We shall again refer to 
Mr. Winsor's great mistake in locating the 
meeting-house on Harden Hill, and out of 



his own book wc shall prove his mistalie. 

It might be well to say that the rem- 
nants of a cofRn found on the water-front 
at Harden Hill would not prove that the 
bones were not Indian bones. There were 
manv praying or Christian Indians in the 
colony, and they would have learned how 
to bury their dead in cofhns. We might 
ask, too, where were the slaves, formerly 
owned in the town, buried? 

The nature of the soil where the rem- 
nants of the coffin were found would make 
the wood and nails decay rapidly, so that 
even a cottin recently buried would soon 
give signs of having been buried for a 
great number of years. 



CHAPTER II. 

It would hardly be necessary to say 
much more about Mr. Winsor's theory 
that Harden Hill was the site of the first 
church and churchyard, and consequently 
the burial place of Standish, if others were 
not misled by Mr. Winsor's authority, and 
if some were not even prejudiced enough 
to maintain what Mr. Winsor himself does 
not maintain, that Mr. Winsor's authority 
is final on this ijuestion of the grave of 
Mvles Standish. 

Had Mr. Winsor adverted to what he 
has on page 183 of his "History of Dux- 
bury," he would not have adopted the 
Harden Hill theory, nor would so many 
people have been led astray by his author 
ity. Speaking of the parsonage given to 
Mr. Wiswall in 1694, Mr. Winsor says: 
"In 16!»4, we find the first mention of a 
parsonage when a committee was appoint- 
ed to give Mr. W. a deed of the towne 
house, 'and the land he now lives on. At 
this time the town granted him half ye 
meadow called Rouse's meadow, yt be- 
longed to ye ministry, to him and his 
lieirs forever, and ye use of yt whole his 
lifetime.' The house above named was 
built by the Rev. John Holmes, on land 
he purchased of John Sprague, and was 
situated west of the road leading from the 
meeting house into the Nook or Capt. 
Standisli's point, containing about five 
or eight acres. The house was afterward 
sold by Major William Bradford, who 
married the widow of Mr. Holmes, to the 
town." 

From the location of this house built by 
Mr. Holmes, it was easy for Mr. Winsor to 
perceive that tiiis house lying west of the 
road leading from the meeting-house into 
the Nook, the meeting-house could not 
have been on Harden Hill. To reach the 
Nook from a supposed meeting-house on 
Harden Hill you would have to go west 
until you n\et the road leading from the 
mill at Mill Brook to the Nook. The 
main road would be from the Nook to the 
mill, and a road running at right angles, or 



nearly so, would lead from this main road 
to the supposed meeting-house on Harden 
Hill. This latter would be the meeting- 
house road proper, for the one from the 
Nook to the mill was known as the road 
from the Nook to the mill. As a matter 
of fact the meeting-house was on the west- 
ern side of this main road, and so this 
road was also called the road from 
the meeting-house to the mill, and the road 
from the meeting-house to the Nook. It 
took its designation indiscriminately from 
the three important places on it, the 
Nook, the meeting-house, and the mill. A 
farm west of the road leading from the 
meetinghouse to the Nook, could not be 
at Harden Hill, nor could it be at Mrs. 
Thomas Chandler's farm as we shall see. 
Here then Mr. Winsor had proof that his 
conjecture, that for seventy years the first 
church was on Harden Hill, was wrong. 

On the same page of his History of Dux- 
bury, 183, Mr. Winsor continues directly 
after the words quoted: "At the same 
time they gave him (Mr. Wiswall) one half 
of Bump's meadow, and the old pasture 
bounded north-east by the before men 
tioned house lot, N. west by Mr. Ralph 
Thacher's homestead; south-west by Mor- 
ton's Hole marsh; and south-east by 
Thomas Boney's." It will be seen, then, 
that the homestead of Rev. John Holmes 
given by the town to Mr. Wiswall was the 
north-east boundary of this other piece of 
land given to Mr. Wiswall, which was 
bounded on the south-west by Morton's 
Hole marsh. By looking at the map of the 
town Mr. Winsor could have at once de- 
termined where Rev. Mr. Wiswall's home 
was, where Rev. Mr. Holmes' home was, 
and where the Rev. Mr. Partridge's home 
was. The three are mentioned in this 
paragraph giving the boundaries of this 
piece of land given to Mr. Wiswall. From 
the position of the marsh at Morton's Hole, 
and from the location of the two pieces of 
land given to Mr. Wiswall, one the 
Holmes homestead, and the reference to 
the road from the meeting-house into the 
Nook as the eastern boundary of the above 
homestead, we can easily show that the 
meeting-house was not on Harden Hill, 
nor could it have been on Mrs. Thomas 
Chandler's farm. The evidence all proves 
that it was at the present old cemetery be- 
tween Hall's and Bayley's Corners. 

Mr. Ralph Thacher, whose name is men- 
tioned in the last boundaries, was the 
grandson of Rev. Ralph Partridge, and 
occupied the homestead of his grandfather, 
which came to him through his mother, a 
daughter of Mr. Partridge. Here we see 
the homes of the first three ministers. 
Partridge, Holmes and Wiswall, almost 
beside tlie okl cemetery, between Hall's 
and Bayley's Corners; Partridge's was ad- 
joining the cemetery. 



CHAPTER III. 

Before proving conclusively the location 
of the first meeting-house and graveyard 
to have been at the present old cemetery 
north of Morton's Hole marsh, on the road 
between Hall's Corner and Bay ley 's Corner, 
we shall consider the theory advanced by 
some that the old meeting-house lay on 
the point of land lying west of Morion's 
Hole, on or near what is now the farm of 
Mrs. Thomas Chandler, and that Myles 
Standish was buried there. 

In order to reach this point or tongue 
of land stretching into the bay west of Mor- 
ton's Hole, you should have highways from 
the different parts of the town leading to 
this place. But in all the records of the 
town from the earliest times there is not a 
hint of a highway into this tongue of land. 
In fact it would be absurd to suppose that 
Standish and the founders of the town 
would have built their meeting-house, 
in such an out-of-the-way place. Standish, 
Brewster and those who lived in the Nook 
would have to come up to Hall's Corner 
and then pass westward in order to get 
around the marsh that lay all round Mor- 
ton's Hole, and then pass westward of the 
Goodwin (now Saunders) house to the 
south to reach the ineeting-housc, and this 
in all kinds of weather. To imagine such 
a thing when the roads were bad, and when 
the bay came farther north than it does at 
present, when the whole valley lying 
around Morton's Hole was swamp, and 
marsh, and bog, and when quite a large 
creek flowed down through the gorge be- 
side the first bridge on what is known as 
the New Road or Border Street — to imag- 
ine, I say, such a location for the meeting- 
liouse as on that tongue of land west of 
Morton's Hole, is to imagine that Stand- 
ish, Brewster, Alden, and the other pru- 
dent men who settled the town were 
doing their best to make church go- 
ing as hard and as difficult as possible 
for themselves and for all concerned. Then 
all the people in the north end of the town, 
in fact, in all the town, (we have already 
spoken of the Nook), would have to trudge 
their weary ways over bad roads and around 
swamps to the most southerly point of 
land in the town to reach their meeting- 
house. Would it not be more in accordance 
with reason to suppose that all the inhabi- 
tants of the town would vote to place the 
meeting-house in a central, accessible 
place? Why should they select the most 
inaccessible places and the most incon- 
venient '! • 

It has been said that the swamp or marsh 
around Morton's Hole did not in former 
times extend so far southwardly as at pres- 
ent; in other words, that the bay came in 
fartlier towards the north. Mr. Herbert 
Peterson, the present owner of the land in 



this marsh, says that he distinctly remem- 
bers when the marsh's edge was nearly 
one hundred feet farther north than it is 
at ])resent, and Mr. Peterson is a young 
man. This, too, is borne out by the fact 
that quite a large creek called Morton's 
Hole Creek ran into the bay at this point. 
The bed of the creek is still plainly visible 
and the waters of the bay went up the 
creek to ({uite a distance; just as at 
Eagle's Nest creek and Blue-fish river. 
That this was so is evidenced by the fact 
that in 1639 a. d., by order of the town a 
"wear" was to be set at Morton's Hole. 
This fact in itself proves that there was 
quite acreek.which wasknown as Morton's 
Hole Creek, flowing into the bay from the 
north, the head of which creek is still 
plainly traceable. Taking all these things 
into consideration, and the swampy, boggy 
nature of the land around the Hole even 
to this day, we know that the arable and 
pasture land must have been less than it 
is today in this vicinity, These facts will 
be of the greatest interest when we keep 
them in memory in connection with the 
grants of land and the boundaries of farms 
and highways at and near Morton's Hole. 

As has been said there was not a high- 
way leading into this tongue of land, now 
owned by Mrs. Thomas Chandler, from 
any part of the town. Had Mr. Winsor 
adverted to what he wrote on page 183, 
he could have saved a great deal of con- 
fusion, and if those who would locate the 
first meeting-house on Mrs. Chandler's 
farm would but attend to the geography 
of the town, and the records of highways, 
farms, and town's lands, they would be 
saved the mistake of trying to prove an 
impossible thing. 

We have already seen that the Rev. Mr. 
Holmes built his house on land bought of 
John Sprague, and we have seen the loca- 
tion of that land with reference to Morton's 
Hole and the road leading from the meet- 
ing-house into the Nook. A road leading 
from Chandler's farm to the Nook could 
not by any possibility be the boundary for 
a farm lying northeast of Morton's Hole 
marsh. 

The Chandler farm is west of Morton's 
Hole, and no highway ever ran to and 
from Chandler's place. How could a farm 
lying northeast of Morton's Hole be 
bounded on its eastern side by a sujiposed 
road running from a point west of Morton's 
Hole to a point of land due east of Mor- 
ton's Hole? It is well to bear in mind that 
Mr. Holmes came to Du.\bury in KiHS, and 
bought the land from Sprague and built 
his home thereon. 

The location of the Sprague farm will 
also prove that the road from the meeting- 
house into the Nook could not be a road 
running from the Chandler farm. The 
Sprague homestead and farm \&y between 



s 



ihe Nook and Powder iPoint. tn the deed 
which will be cited later this will be more 
evident. We cite the following from the 
"Memorial of the Sprague Family" by 
Richard Soule. Speaking of Francis 
Sprague, who was admitted a freeman in 
l(j:5T, Mr. Soule says: "Nothing is known 
in regard to the locality of his residence, 
e.vcept that it was somewhere on the shore 
I)ctween Captain's Hill and Bluelish River. 
In an interesting paper by the late Alden 
Bradford, entitled 'Notes on Duxbury', 
and published in the Massachusetts Histori- 
cal Collections, it is stated, as a matter of 
record, that a pathway was early laid out 
from Plymouth, over Jones' River, and 
crossing Island Creek, wound along near 
the shore of the bay to accommodate 
Standish, Brewster, Sprague, and others 
in the south and east part of the town, 
and then led over Blue river near the head 
of the salt water, and passing John Alden's 
settlement on the north side of this river 
was continued over Stony brook (Mill 
Brook) near Philip Delano, who had just 
begun a farm there by Duck Hill, to 
Careswell, the residence of Governor 
Winslow. 

"Standish and Brewster.it is well known, 
resided on the soutli eastern side of the 
peninsula, now called 'The Nook,' of 
whicii Captain's Hill forms a part. But 
whether Sprague, who is named with them 
in this extract, is to be classed with those 
who dwelt in the south, or with those liv- 
ing in the east part of the town, does not 
clearly appear. It is most probable, how- 
ever, that as the names of Standish and 
Brewster must have been intended to rep- 
resent the lirst localitj^ tliat of Sprague, 
was introduced as representing the last." 

Tills Francis Sprague was the father of 
John Sprague who sold the land for his 
homestead to Rev. John Holmes. From 
this we can see that the Sjn'ague land lay 
l)etween the Nook and the Alden farm and 
the eastern shore. The Spragues never 
owned land on Harden Hill, nor where the 
Chandler farm is, west of Morton's Hole. 
The road from the meeting-house to the 
Nook must have run through the Sprague 
farm, and in fact we shall see that it did. 
The part of the Sprague farm sold to 
1 [olmes lay to the west of this road. The 
location, then, of the Sprague farm is of 
interest in this matter. 

All that has been suggested so far is 
borne out by a reference to the highways 
set forth in Duxbury by the jury of 
twelve impaneled in 1(>37 lor this purpose. 
Winsor in his History gives a good ac- 
count of these liighways on page seven- 
teen. His description is taken from the 
original documents. He says: "The 
roads through Duxbury l)cgan at the ferry 
at Jones river, and thence by Stephen 
Tracy's (the present Samuel Loring's) to 



the bridge Jit J'ohn Roger's tlience by 
Jonathan Brewster's cowyard, through a 
valley near the house of Mr. Prence,' 
thence by Christopher Wadsworth's whose; 
pallasadoe is to be removed, thence to 
Francis Sprague's and then fell into the 
way that leads from Morton's Hole to 
Ducksburrow Towne." 

Continuing the description of the high- 
ways Winsor says: "From this main 
path (that is, the one just described) there 
branched off one going to the Nook to ac- 
commodate Standish and Brewster, and 
returning by iVm. Bassett's and Francis 
Sprague's, through an ancient path joined 
again the highway." 

In these words we have again confirma- 
tion of the location of Sprague's land and 
therefore of the position of Wis wall's 
home in regard to the road leading from, 
the meeting-house into the Nook. We 
may also refer to the fact that in 1638, 
when Prince was governor, the Plymouth 
County Records say: "Whereas there 
was a highway laid forth through Captain 
Standish and Mr. Brewster's ground on 
the Duxburrow side, which is not of use 
for the country, and they do therefore re- 
fuse to repair the same, the said Captain 
Standish and Mr. Brewster do undertake 
to repair said way and it to be only for 
their own use." This road leading into 
the Nook was repaired and improved in 
1715, and to this we shall again refer in 
quoting some records concerning the loca- 
tion of the Nook with regard to the meet- 
ing-house. 

To return to a description of the high- 
ways as set forth by the jury of twelve in 
1637: "From Wadsworth's the path led 
through Sprague's and Bassett's orchards, 
thence through John Washl)urn's land to 
William Palmer's gate, thence through 
Peter Brown's land to the westward of 
Henry Howland's house, thence through a 
marsh to Mr. John Alden's, thence through 
a valley by the corner of Philip Delano's 
farm to Edward Bumpasse's and thence 
by Rowland Leyborne's house to Green's 
Harbor." 

Here again you will be helped to locate 
Sprague's land, and that of other early 
settlers. 



CHAPTER IV. 

We know now the general run of tlie 
highways, and the locations of some of 
the farms and their situation as regards 
Morton's Hole. 

The liighways were: (1) the one from 
Plymouth through Kingston to Bayley's 
Corner, and then going through the woods 
towards the north-east, coming out at a 
point a little south of the Soldiers' monu- 
ment near the Unitarian church, and bend- 
ing around to the south-east by the east- 



s> 



ern side of the old cemetery between Hall's 
and Bayley's Corners. The present direct 
road between these Corners was not made 
for many years after the settlement of the 
town. The Plymouth road, as already 
seen, came through Christopher Wads- 
worth's land into Sprague's, and from this 
place near Morton's Hole the second road 
was laid out: (3) the second road ran from 
the north of Morton's Hole to the west of 
John Alden's farm of 169 acres to Mill 
Brook, to Duck Hill, and to the home of 
Winslow at Careswell; (3) the third road 
ran from the junction of the otlier two, 
nortli of Morton's Hole to the homes of 
Stand ish and Brewster. A new road was 
made to the Nook in 1715 and this new 
road ran to the east of the old one made 
in 1(W7. These were the orignal roads of 
the town, and all other roads made in the 
town, as well as these, are found in the 
Old Colony Records, or in the records of 
Duxbury, and in the deeds about farms 
and public lands. These roads met at the 
old cemetery. It must be borne in mind 
that (1) the new road to Kingston, (2) the 
present road to the Nook from Hall's Cor- 
ner, (;5d) the road from Hall's to Bayley's 
Corner, (4th) the road from Hall's Corner 
to the South Duxbury station, and (5th) 
the road from Hall's Corner coming to the 
eastern shore and along the shore to Pow- 
der Point, were not in existence for very 
many years after the settlement of the 
town; not one of these five roads was in 
being before the year 1700 a. d. 

The road to Standish's was, as we have 
seen, kept private for a number of years, 
and this is the path partly followed by the 
road made in 1715, a. d., when we shall 
see that it was laid out as a highway 
through Wiswall's land up to the meet- 
ing-house. 

From all this it will be evident that no 
highway led down to the farm of Mrs. 
Thomas Chandler. All the paths and 
roads converged to a point near the farms 
of Wadsworth and Sprague lying north of 
Morton's Hole. Mrs. Chandler's farm lies 
to the west of Morton's Hole, and by no 
possibility could you conceive of a road 
leading from a supposed meeting-house on 
that farm into the Nook and bounding 
Wiswall's house lot of "five or eight 
acres" on the east. 

When to all this you add that there is 
not the slightest trace of a meeting-house, 
or of a public graveyard, or of any public 
roads on Mrs. Chandler's farm, the most 
skeptical must be satisfied tliat the sugges- 
tion of some as to the location of the first 
church and grave yard on that farm is al- 
together gratuitous. In this case there is 
no claim advanced that the sea washed 
away the dead, nor is there any effort 
made to explain the absence of all trace of 
some scores of graves on that piece of land. 



The old way from Mrs. Chandler's to 
the old road between Duxbury and Plym- 
outh was a path leading up from this 
southerly point of land to the main road. 
This was all the way to and from that 
point of land, and Mrs. Thomas Chandler 
remembers when there was no otlicr way. 
Now the path leads up to the new road 
called Border Street. When you go down 
Border street and pass the house of the 
late Mr. LeBaron Goodwin, you come to 
the lane that leads down to Mrs. Chand- 
ler's. There is a small piece of land on 
which there are four hills lying south of 
Border Street. On one of these hills on 
the south-east of this tongue of land Is the 
home of Mr. Ellis Peterson. Behind his 
house is another of these hills on the land 
of Mr. Goodwin (now Saunders.) On the 
south-west corner of the land is the home 
of Mrs. Thomas Chandler, and it is on a 
hill, the third one, while the fourth hill 
lies on Mrs. Chandler's farm a few rods to 
the north of her house. These four hills 
with the valleys are all the land that lies 
on this tongue. The marsh and swamp 
came up to Goodwin's house on the east 
and northeast of this little promontory 
with its four hills, and on the northwest, 
west, and south, the bay and the swamp 
came in almost to the cart road that leads 
to Mrs. Chandler's. The supposed meet- 
ing-house and graveyard lay to the north 
of Mrs. Chandler's dwelling house, or five 
or six rods north of her barn. The site is 
on the edge of the northwest hill on her 
farm, as it slopes to the west. This is a 
small piece of sloping land, and any person 
can at once see that it would be the height 
of folly for the first settlers of Duxbury to 
build their meeting-house and bury their 
dead there. There is not land enough for 
such a purpose. The site would be one of 
the most inconvenient in the town. It is 
simply a small piece of sandy soil with 
four small hills and their slopes. There 
would be no place for the stocks and the 
pound which were always near the meet- 
inghouse. The people would have to 
trudge through dreary swamps to reach 
this spot. No highways ran to it; none 
of the farms mentioned in the records as 
lying near the meeting-house were there. 
None of the land lying south of the meet- 
ing house could be there, for it is only a 
few rods to the water's edge on the south 
and west. What then of the farms men- 
tioned as lying south of the meeting- 
house, and west of the road leading from 
the meeting-house into the Nook? 

This place of four hills was evidently 
an Indian resort. Countless arrowheads, 
and Indian mortars for grinding corn, and 
heaps of clam-shells and of corn-stalks, 
have been ploughed up on these hills. 
Mrs. Chandler said the church and grave- 
yard were on the little sand hill on Mr. 



10 



Goodwin's farm. This would be an im- 
possibility. No graves were ever found 
there, no church was ever built there. 
After digging down to quite a depth, we 
found nothing but some modern brick and 
traces of burnt clam-shells, and some 
broken motlern crockery. Afterw'ards we 
were told that Mrs. Chandler pointed out 
the wrong place, and that the supposed 
site of the old church and graveyard was 
on the western slope of the hill a few rods 
north of her dwelling house. Of this site 
we heard the full history from some of the 
oldest persons in town. From what has 
been said it will be seen that there is not a 
record, not a trace of a meeting-house hav- 
ing ever been at or near Mrs. Chandler's 
farm. The only evidence ever produced 
to prove that there was a meeting-house 
on this promontory of sand hills was the 
fact that some bones were found on the 
western slope of the hill north of Mrs. 
Chandler's house. A few bones were 
found. The conclusion deduced was this — 
here was the first graveyard, and there- 
fore the first meeting-house, and therefore 
here Standish was buried. The wonder of 
it all is, that nobody can tell whether the 
bones were those of a whiteman or of an 
Indian. If the first burial ground were 
here, there should be at least about one 
hundred graves in the place, but there is 
no trace of such a thing. 

Mr. Frank Ryder, who is acquainted 
with all the tradition about this old hill- 
side, says that it was a home, or private, 
or family, burial place. That it could not 
have been anything more, if even that, is 
too plain; and then to imagine that Cap- 
tain Myles Standish would have buried 
his beloved children on the farm of a 
stranger, in a most forsaken and unseemly 
place, is the height of folly. This story 
about Mrs. Chandler's farm is the result 
of ignorance of the history of the town. 

The search at Mrs. Thomas Chandler's 
was conducted by Dr. Wilfred G. Brown 
of Duxbury and myself. 

Leaving Mrs. Chandler's we went to 
Mr. Frank Ryder's. Mr. Ryder lives in 
a house known as the Cushman house. 
Our reason for going to Mr. Ryder's was 
this: Mrs. Ziba Hunt, who lives near the 
almshouse, and is a very old woman, told 
me that her mother, Mrs. Diana Chandler, 
had an old lady spinning for her, who had 
just come from Mrs. Cu.shman's, and this 
old lady told Mrs. Diana Chandler that 
Mrs. Cushman liad pointed out to her the 
grave of Myles Standish from the window 
of Mrs. Cushman's house. 

Dr. Brown and I went to Mr. Ryder's to 
find out if we could see the supposed 
graveyard at Mrs. Thomas Ciiandler's 
from "the Cushman house." We found 
that it would be an absolute and physical 
impossibility to see tJic reported grave- 



yard from any part of Mr, Ryder's house. 
You could see the roof and part of Mrs. 
Thomas Chandler's house, but you could 
not see the ground at the back of her 
house, nor the lower slope on the western 
side of the hill which was the supposed 
graveyard. This is true even if all the 
trees intervening were removed. There 
are a few trees in the way, but the hill on 
which Mr. Ryder's house sits stretches so 
far to the south that it is impossible, ow- 
ing to this hill and to other intervening 
hills, to see the land at the back of Mrs. 
Thomas Chandler's. The evident con- 
clusion then is, that Mrs. Cushman could 
not have pointed out the supposed grave 
to the old lady who did the spinning for 
herself and Mrs. Diana Chandler. 

The house in which Mr. Ryder lives 
was partly built by Dr. John Wadsworth, 
who died in 1799. Since Dr. Wadsworth 
first built on that site, the house has been 
enlarged to three or four times its original 
size and extended several feet to the south. 
When built by Dr. Wadsworth, it was a 
small one story house. 

Originally it faced the east, or east by 
north, while now the main part of the 
house faces the south. Even as the house 
now stands, extending much farther to the 
south, it would be impossible for any one 
to point out from it the grave or to see 
any of the land around Mrs. Thomas 
Chandler's. 



CHAPTER V. 

The "Ryder house" called by some the 
"Cushman house" was built in IIG'S for 
Joshua Cushman, when he married Mercy 
Wadsworth, the daughter of Doctor John 
Wadsworth. This was the first house 
built in all that section of the town be- 
tween it and the bay. 

Seeing that it would be impossible for 
any one to point out the grave of Standish 
from any part of the Ryder or Cushman 
house, and, pursuing our investigations, 
we discovered several things of the great- 
est importance in this matter of the Cush- 
man tradition. 

First of all it was evident that the Cush- 
man tradition, of whatever value, de- 
pended on the authority of Doctor John 
Wadsworth, the father of Mercy, who 
married Joshua Cushman in 1703. Dr. 
Wadsworth built a home for them. Now, 
Doctor Wadsworth's authority is plain. 
He spoke of two remarkable, triangular, 
pyramidal stones as marking the burial 
place of Standish. His daughter had her 
tradition from him, and thus the Cush- 
man tradition in every form resolves itself 
into Dr. Wadsworth's statements. 

Besides the story of the spinning wo- 
man, who was a stranger in town, we 
have two other forms of the Cushman 



11 



tradition. Let us examine the spinning 
woman's story first of all. Other tradi- 
tions, doubtless derived from her story, 
make the same statement, that the grave 
of Myles Standish can be seen from the 
Cushman house. In testing this story we 
found that there were two Cushman 
houses and three Mrs. Cushmans. One 
Cushmun house is the present Ryder 
house, and the other is the Charlemagne 
Cushman house, built about the year l^OU 
A. D., and now owned bj^ Mrs. Captain 
Myrick. Mrs. Hunt, whose mother, Mrs. 
Diana Chandler, had heard the spinning 
woman's story, was unable to say which of 
the two Cushman houses was in question, 
and which of the three Mrs. Cuslunans, 
Mfg. Joshua Cushman, or her daughter-in- 
law, Mrs. Ezra Cushman, or Mrs. Charle- 
magne Cushman. With all this doubt 
hanging around the exact house and the 
exact Mrs. Cushman, and whether one 
Mrs. Cushman might not have been visit- 
ing at the home of another Mrs. Cushman, 
or living there for the time, we could ar- 
rive at no satisfactory conclusion but this: 
that a Mrs. Cushman pointed out from a 
Cushman house the grave of Myles Stan- 
dish to a spinning woman. This is the 
substantial evidence of the tradition. 

Now, from neither Cushman house 
could you see the reputed graveyard at 
Mrs. Thomas Chandler's. From Mrs. My- 
rick's, however, you can see the old ceme- 
tery between Hall's and Bay ley's Corners, 
and almost the very grave of Standish 
about the centre of the graveyard. 

Another form of the Cushman tradition 
is Luat Dr. John Wadsworth, when taking 
his occasional visitors to see the burial 
place of Standish always went to the 
south-east from his house. The conclu- 
sion would be that he went to the farm of 
Mrs. Thomas Chandler. This tradition is 
held by a very few people who can give 
no account of it, and who know nothing 
about where Doctor Wadsworth lived, 
nor the situation of his home with refer- 
ence to either Mrs. Thomas Chandler's 
place, or the old cemetery between Hall's 
and Bayley's Corners. This tradition is 
evidently the same as that of which Mr. 
Stephen M. Allen gives an account in his 
letter to the Boston Transcript of June 2, 
1891. Mr. Allen says:— 

"The traditional account which was 
published in the Transcript some fifteen 
or eighteen years ago, herewitli tran- 
scribed, seems much more plausible than 
the recent claims set up. It is as follows: — 

'The burial place of Standi.sh has not yet 
been found. It was not until 1872 that we 
had any probable clew to its location. At 
the laying of the corner-stone of the monu- 
ment to Standish there was an old lady 
present, Mrs. Lorlann Thomas Loring, 
now living at Charlestown, whose family 



formerly lived in Du.xbury, who gave 
some light on that subjctt wliich may lead 
to the discovery of his grave. She said 
that her mother, ]\Iary Cushman Thomas, 
who was a grandaughter of Dr. John 
Wadsworth, of Duxbury, who died in 
1799, had many times informed her that 
when a uirl of fifteen or sixteen she used 
to pass much time with her grandfather, 
who lived on or near the westerly shore of 
the head of the bay, directly west of Cap- 
tain's hill and soutliwest of Morton's Hole, 
and on the west side of what is now the 
new road from Hall's Corner to Kingston, 
in a house still standing and occupied by 
Mr. George F. Ryder; that Dr. Wadsworth 
often had distinguished guests to dine 
with him when she was present, and that 
after dinner in such cases it was almost 
his invariaV)le custom to invite them to 
visit the grave of Standish near tlie shore; 
that she had many times seen her grand- 
father start from the south side of the 
house and go in a sovitheasterly direction 
to the shore with such guests to a small 
hill in two parts, now owned by Thomas 
Chandler, and lying almost down to the 
water's edge. In such cases on their re- 
turn she had heard them converse about 
the grave and she had no doubt it was 
there. _ The old lady died February 27, 
1859, in Charlestown and but a year be- 
fore her death, she reiterated her state- 
ment to Mrs. Loring. On examination 
we have found that at the time specified 
there was a road on the south side of Dr. 
Wadsworth's house which ran down 
toward the shore, but that it had long 
since been discontinued; also that upon 
one of the points on the rise of land, so men- 
tioned, the first rude church of Duxbury 
is supposed to have been built. It is ([uite 
likely that the adjoining knoll sliould 
have been used for their first burying 
ground. It has been assigned as tlie rea- 
son for building the first church upon the 
shore, that it was for safety against any 
attack from the Indians, leaving a means 
of escape by boats across to Plymouth. 
The early records mention an examination 
near Morton's Hole for a church. Cap- 
tain Standish, in his will said he desired 
to be buried beside his daughter and 
daughter-in law. The daughter-in-law 
was the wife of Lieutenant Josiah Stand- 
ish, who afterward married the daughter 
of Samuel Allen of Bridgewater. It is to 
be hoped that, although there is at pres- 
ent no sign of graves on the spot men- 
tioned, if there they may yet be discov- 
ered, that the remains may be placed at 
the base of the Standish monument.' " 

It is necessary to examine the story told 
by Mr. Allen. 

First of all he speaks of "the traditional 
accoiuit" as if the obscure hint o'f a tradi- 
tion to which he refers were tlie sum and 



12 



substance of all reliable traditions on this 
matter. Then he says that it was only in 
1872 that there was any probable clue to 
the location of the Standish grave. It was 
then Mr. Allen first heard what he calls a 
"probable clew," but if he had inquired 
faithfully he would have found that many 
of the people knew of the burying place of 
Standish long before 1872. 

Mr. Allen quotes Mrs. Loriann Thomas 
Loring as authority for his version of the 
traditional account. Mrs. Loring was the 
daughter of Mary Cushman Thomas, who 
was born in 1768 and was the daughter of 
Mercy Wadsworth (the daughter of Dr. 
John) who in 1763 married Joshua Cush- 
man. The important points in Mrs. Lor- 
ing's account are, that Dr. Wadsworth in 
going with his guests to the Standish 
burial place went to the southeast from 
his house and that his house is the one now 
occupied by George Frank Ryder. Mr. 
Allen in telling the public where George 
Frank Ryder's hou.se is says it is "on or 
near the westerly shore of the head of the 
bay, directly west of Captain's Hill and 
southwest of Morton's Hole, and on the 
west side of what is now the new road 
from Hall corner to Kingston." This story 
is entirely inaccurate. Mr. Ryder's house 
lies north of the bay; it is far more north 
than west of Captain's Hill; it is almost 
due north of Morton's Hole, instead of 
being south-west as Mr. Allen's account 
says; and it is due north to the new road 
from Hall's Corner to Kingston. 

Again, so far from Mr. Ryder's house 
having been the home of Dr. Wadsworth, 
the doctor built that house for his daugh- 
ter in 1763; he lived on the Fernando 
Wadsworth homestead west of Bayley's 
Corner. George Frank Ryder, who lives 
in the old Cushman house, to which Mr. 
Allen refers, says that Dr. Wadsworth 
(the great-great grand father of Mrs. 
Ryder) lived on the Fernando Wadsworth 
homestead. Justin Winsor in his history 
of Duxbury, on page 12, writes: "On 
one of the roads leading from the inland 
towns, was situated the house of Dr. John 
Wadsworth, who was noted as rather an 
eccentric individual, and concerning whom 
some anecdotes of an amusing nature are 
still current. By his door frequently i)assed 
the adventuresome sons of farmers of tlie 
interior, eager to ship themselves on beard 
some of the comparatively many fishing 
vessels, which were then often leaving 
Du.xbury at the proper season. At one 
time a party of these going by, asked the 
doctor tlu; distance to the village, and other 
(juestions concerning the prospects before 
tliem, who met them with the roi)ly. "Ah, 
you are going there, are you? That place 
is Sodom. 1 tell you it is going to be sunk, 
it is! Well, now, do you want me to make 
you a rhyme? Well, then 



The Swampineers avoid all fears, 

A fishing they will po. 
If they scape h— , it will be well, 
But that thev willn't I know. 
And with this most solemn warning he 
dismissed them." 

From this it will be seen that as Dr. 
Wadsworth lived on one of the roads lead- 
ing from the inland towns he could not have 
lived in the Ryder house. No public high- 
way ever ran by the Ryder house, and the 
Ryder house is not even now on a high- 
way, nor is it situated on the way from 
the inland towns to the shore. Those who 
know best say that Dr. Wadsworth lived 
beyond Bayley's Corner, on the Fernando 
Wadsworth place. 

Dr. Wadsworth was born in 1706 and 
died in 1799. The only ways open to hitn 
to reach the old cemetery between Hall's 
and Bayley's Corners, were either to go to 
the northeast and turning to the east by 
the old road before mentioned, (which was 
a little south of the Soldiers' monument) 
bend round to the southeast and so come 
to the old cemetery; or he could go to the 
southeast from his house by a path that 
led to the home of his daughter Mercy, 
Mrs. Joshua Cushman, and turning 
towards the east bend a little towards the 
northeast to the old cemetery. This latter 
was the shorter route on foot, and the 
more picturesque, lying within view of 
the bay, and Dr. Wadsworth would be 
traveling almost all the time through 
laud belonging to himself or his fanaily. 
In this way he would have gone in a 
southeasterly direction from his own 
house. But Mr. Allen says that the doctor 
went in a southeasterly direction from Mr. 
Ryder's house to the Chandler place. Now 
this is an absolute impossibility. The 
home of Mrs. Thomas Chandler lies in a 
southwesterly direction from the Ryder 
home, and the roadway or rather path of 
which Mr Allen says he found traces ran 
in a southwesterly direction. This is the 
path which Mrs. Thomas Chandler says 
was for the convenience of private persons 
not of the public. 

In Mrs. Loriann Thomas Loring's ac- , 
count we see that she does not say that 
her mother ever said that she went with 
Dr. Wadsworth and his guests to the 
burial place of Standish. Mrs. Loring's 
mother, Mrs. Cushman Thomas (daughter 
of Mercy Wadsworth) left Du.xbury when 
a yovmg woman, and, from the account 
we receive from her, it is plain that she 
did not live in the same house with her 
grandfather. Dr. John Wadsworth. She 
lived in her fatlier's house, the Joshua Cush- 
man house, where George Frank Ryder now 
lives. The whole story is so full of inac- 
curacies about places, dates, and directions, 
that its value amounts simply to this, tliat 
Dr. John Wadsworth was in the habit of 
taking his guests to see the burial place of 



13 



Myles Standish, and that this bmial place 
was in the southeastern part of Duxbury, 
near the l)ay and within easy walking 
distance of Dr. Wadsworth's home. Also 
we see that this burial place was beside 
the church. Hereafter we shall see that 
Dr. Wadsworth spoke of the two remark- 
able triangular pyramids of stone that 
marked the burial place. It it not neces- 
sary to dwell at greater length on this 
version of the Cushman tradition, except 
to say that its whole value depends on the 
authority of Dr. Wadsworth, and his more 
explicit testimony we shall see later. 

We must not omit to refer to Mr. Al- 
len's last argument to uphold the ground- 
less theory he advocates. He says: "It 
has been assigned as the reason for build- 
ing the first church upon the shore, that 
it was for safety against any attack from 
the Indians, leaving a means of escape by 
boats across to Plamouth." This is, per- 
haps, the strongest argument for this 
theory. According to this the Indians 
were to attack the town when the people, 
men, women, and children, were at the 
little meeting-house, or the people were 
all to rush there when attacked, all the 
boats were to be there, and the waters of 
Kingston Bay and of Plymouth Bay were 
to remain in the bays all the time! 

A third version of the Cushman tradi- 
tion is that Myles Standish was buried a 
few rods to the southeast of Mr. Ryder's 
house, on the farm now owned by Mr. 
Ryder. This shows that the belief of later 
generations of Cushmans in the Thomas 
Chandler farm theory was not very strong. 
Mr. Ryder points out the spot on his farm, 
which one of Mrs. Rj^der's ancestors be- 
lieved to be burial place of Standish, and 
which Mr. Cushman did not allow to be 
ploughed for a number of years. It is not 
necessary to say that the Mr. Cushman, 
who held this' absurd theory, had no 
grounds for holding it. The Ryder farm 
and all the land south to the shore, includ- 
ing Mrs. Myrick's, Ellis Peterson's, Mrs. 
Thomas Chandler's, George Torrey's, 
Henry Barstow's, Fernando Wadsworth's, 
etc., etc., all belonged to the farm of 
Christopher Wadsworth almost from the 
time he came to Duxbury with the first 
settlers. He bought Job Cole's land and 
John Starr's and other land, which, with 
the grants to himself, made an immense 
farm. There never was any town land on 
any part of this farm, whether at Mrs. 
Thomas Chandler's place or elsewhere. 
The Captain would not be buried on an- 
other man's farm, nor would he bury his 
children there. Christopher Wadsworth 
was alive in 1677. 



CHAPTER VI. 

It is certain that in 10:50, if not before 
that time, some of tlie chief pilgrims liad 
come to Duxbury. In the winter time 
they returned to Plymouth. The follow- 
ing document throws light on the point: 

"Ano 1032 } The names of those which 
Aprell 2 \ promise to remove their fam- 
[ilies] to live in the towue in the winter 
time, that they m[ay] the better repair to 
the worship of God. 

John Alden, 
Capt. Standish, 
Jonathan Brewster, 
Thomas Prence." 

The removal to Plymouth in the winter 
was not required a year or two later. "In 
the j'ear 1082, a number of the brethren 
inhabiting on the other side of the bay, at 
a place since called Duxborough, growing 
weary of attending the worship of God 
from such distance asked and were granted 
a dismission." All agree that about this 
time the people of Duxbury were released 
from the obligation of attending service in 
Plymouth. There was not a settled pastor 
in Duxbury until Rev. Ralph Partridge 
came in 1037. The first church was built 
in Duxbury between 1033 and 1638. 

This first meeting-house, Mr. Winsor 
says, stood for about seventy years, and in 
it ministered the first three pastors. But 
Mr. Winsor is not certain of its location, 
nor is he absolutely certain when the 
second was built. All agree there was 
but one church before the one built 
in the beginning of the eighteenth cen- 
tury. Tradition and history are at one in 
saying, that the church built at the old 
cemetery in the beginning of the eight- 
eenth century was the second church built 
in the town. 

From continual references to the meet- 
ing-house it will be seen that there was a 
meeting-house in the town as early as 103« 
A. D. 

In the year 1638 it was recorded that A. 
Sampson was presented to the court "for 
striking and abusing John Washburn, the 
younger, in the meetinghouse on the 
Lord's day." 

In 1641 there were eight churches in Ply- 
mouth colony and the Duxbury church 
was one of these. 

In lO.jl Nathaniel Uassett and Jo. Prior 
were fined twenty shillings each for dis- 
turbing the church. 

In l()o2 George Russell was fined for not 
attending church in "the liberties" of Dux- 
bury. 

In 1000 Edward Laud, John Cooper, and 
John ;Simmons were fined ten shillings 
each for "prophane and abusive carriages, 
each toward the other on Lord's day at the 
meeting-house." 



14 



In 1CG9 "it wiis enacted that any person 
or persons that shall be found smoking of 
tobacco on the Lord's day, going to or com- 
ing from the meetings witliin two miles of 
the meeting-house, shall pay twelve pence 
for every such default for the colony's 
use." 

In 1672 the meeting-house is mentioned 
in the bounds of Rev. Mr. Holmes' land. 

In 1084 on the 10th September Joseph 
Prior, Junr, was paid one shilling for 
mending the pulpit door. 

In 1686 Rhodolphus Thacher was paid 
ten shillings for sweeping the meeting- 
house. 

In 1690 Deacon Wadsworth received 
ten shillings for sweeping the meeting- 
house. 

In 1692 Mr. Wadsworth received ten 
shillings for sweeping the meeting-house. 
In 1692 Mr. Southworth's bill was 
balanced for repairing Mr. Wiswall's 
house and for glassing the meeting-house. 
In 1693 Mr. Wadsworth was paid fif- 
teen shillings for sweeping the meeting- 
house. 

In 1698 on the 23d May, the selectmen 
were ordered to have the gutters of the 
meeting-house repaired. 

In 1706 on Thursday, the 21st February 
the town gave liberty to Benjamin Prior 
to remove the fence between the meet- 
ing-house and his own house, up to the 
road. 

In 1705-6, the 20th March, the town- 
meeting was adjourned to the 3d April fol- 
lowing to consider some way to raise funds 
for repairing and enlarging their meeting- 
house. 

In 1706 on the 3d of April it was resolved 
to build a new meeting-house. 

All these evidences, and others might be 
added, prove that there was a meeting- 
house in the town from 1638 at least. 
Finally it became so out of repair and so 
unable to accommodate the people that 
they decided to consider how to repair and 
enlarge it, and finally sold it and built a 
new one. 

From what has been said it is clear that 
the meeting-house was north of Morton's 
Hole. The direction of the highways and 
the location of the farms already men- 
tioned place the meeting-house in that 
place. Now it makes no difference whether 
you assert there was only one, or whether 
there were two, or three, or more churches 
built before 170()-7. The deeds of farms 
and the records of the roads locate the 
meeting-house, whether it was the first, or 
second, or third, or any other number, 
north of Morton's Hole. Around it 
were the farms and homes of the minis- 
ters from the l)eginning as we shall now 
see. 

And finst of all as to Mr. Partridge. 
Mr. Partridge's land was granted to him 



around Morton's Hole. He was minister 
of the town, and it was right and natural 
that his land should be near the meeting- 
house, and this was so. In the Plymouth 
Colony records in the book of deeds, we find 
the following entry: 

' ' We whose names are hereunder written , 
by order of Mr. Thomas Prince and Mr. 
William Collier assistant, have measured 
and layed out ten acres of arable land ly- 
ing on the head of Morton's Hole, viz., 
one acre in breadth and ten acres in length 
lying in a square, the south side butting 
upon the garden plot of Edward Hall, 
the west side running into Christopher 
Wadsworth's lot, the east side upon the 
highway and the north side upon the com- 
mon ground, which we allotted and have 
layed out for Mr. Ralph Partridge, the 
30th of December, 1637. 

Jonathan Brewster, 
Stephen Tracye, 
Christopher Wadsworth." 

From this we know that Mr. Partridge's 
land was east of Christopher Wadsworth's, 
west of the road from the Nook to the 
Mill, and south of the common lands. 
The records of the town tell us that the 
common lands lay where the old burying 
ground is, between Hall's and Bayley's 
Corners. We know, too, that Mr. Part- 
ridge built his home there, for in the 
boundaries of the laud given to Rev. Mr. 
Wiswall, of which we spoke in the second 
chapter, tbere is mention of Ralph Thach- 
or's homestead as the north-western bound- 
ary of the land bounded on the north east 
by the house lot of Rev. John Hoi nu'", 
and on the south-west by Morton's Hole 
marsh. This Ralph Thacher was the 
grandson of Rev. Ralph Partridge. Mr. 
Thacher, having inherited his grand-fath- 
er's property in Duxbury, lived here for 
some time, but was afterward ordained 
minister in charge of a parish elsewhere. 
Mr. Partridge's homestead, then, was near 
the church and the churchyard at the head 
of Morton's Hole. 

Mr. Partridge bought several pieces of 
land around this plot of ten acres assigned 
to him by the town. In the Old Colony 
Records, Deeds, Volume 1, page 216, there 
is a record of land that Partridge bought 
of Job Cole in 1651. This land lay against 
Morton's Hole. Again on page 96 it is 
stated that he bought land of Christopher 
Wadsworth in 1643; this land laj' north of 
Job Cole's laod. Again on page 54 we 
are told that iii 1639 he bought twenty 
acres of land of William Latham. 

In the records of June 29, 1637, we are 
told that William Bassett and Francis 
Sprague both sold land to Ralph Partridge. 
The book of deeds says the above two 
parcels of land are bounded "to the land 
of the said Francis Sprague to the south; 



15 



to the land of the said Win. Bassett to the 
east; to the houselot of Mr. William Leve- 
rich now layed forth for him to the north ; 
toward th« land of Christopher Wads- 
worth to the west." On Sept. 7, 1(537, a 
deed says that Partridge obtained the 
above mentioned Leverich plot. 

These parcels of land we see were also 
near Hall's Corner, being a part of 
Sprague's and Bassett's land at that place. 
They lay quite near Morton's Hole. At 
Mr. Partridge's death he was owner of at 
least 150 acres. 

It is well to observe that the land given 
to Mr. Partridge by the town, and the 
land he bought of Sprague and Bassett, 
were bounded by Christopher Wadsworth's 
land on the west. 

The land of Job Cole having been refer- 
red to, it may be said that Job Cole lived 
beside Morton's Hole. We have seen that 
Partridge bought some land from him. 
Mr. Cole, having removed to Eastham, 
sold to Christopher Wadsworth on August 
13, 1651, "a house and laud lying against 
a place called Morton's Hole," the meadow 
and fencing, etc. 

The land of Edward Hall mentioned as 
the southern boundary of the ten acres as- 
signed to Partridge, was sold to William 
Wetherell on January 24, 1638. Wetherell 
paid Hall twenty pounds for his house and 
garden of two acres "lying between Ralph 
Partridge and Nicholas Robbins." 

From all these deeds and farm bound- 
aries we can locate with considerable ac- 
curacy the relative position of the farms of 
Wadsworth, Sprague, Bassett, Robbins, 
Partridge, Hall, and the others mentioned 
in these deeds. We can locate Partridge's 
home better than any of the others. 

We have already seen where the Rev. 
John Holmes had his home, which was 
the house afterwards given by the 
town to Mr. Wiswall in 1694. There is a 
record that the town spent £21 repairing 
this house in 1693. This house was situat- 
ed, as we have seen, N. E. of Morton's 
Hole marsh, but west of the road leading 
from the meeting-house into the Nook. 



CHAPTER VII. 

We shall now quote a record for June 
24, 1672, on page 224 of the small vellum- 
bound book of Duxbury records, which 
reads: "Whereas Mr. Constant South- 
worth, Phillip Dillano, Lawrence and 
Will Pabodie were ajipointed by the town 
to bound out more lands, we the above 
named have bounded out to Mr. John 
Holmes ten acres of land bounded on the 
south by land of Joseph Prior and on the 
east end by the path that goes from the 
meeting-house to the mill and two marked 
trees, on the north side one white oak tree 



wliicli stands about sixteen rods from the 
patii and a pine tree 6 [rods] in the woods." 
The words before the last three arc, 1 
think, contractions for "six rods." The 
points to be observed in tliis record are; 
(1) that the meeting-house was in 1672 on 
a road passing to the mill; (2) that this 
road ran north and south, or else it could 
not have been the eastern boundary of the 
land given to Holmes. From this we 
easily conclude that the road referred to 
here is the road spoken of in 1637 as run- 
ning from "Morton's Hole to Ducksbur- 
row Towne." We know that the mill 
stood on Stony or Mill Brook, and that 
the road running north and soutli in 1672 
to the mill from tlie meeting-house was 
the old road of 1637. Then the location 
of Joseph Prior's farm at this place deter- 
mines absolutely the location of Mr. 
Holmes' grant. Mr. Holmes died in 1675, 
three years after this reference to the 
meeting-house, and he was buried in the 
old graveyard at the meeting-house. 

Already we have seen that Mr. Wiswall 
lived near Morton's Hole. From all those 
facts concerning the lirst three ministers, 
we know that they all lived near Morton's 
Hole, near the old cemetery, and natur- 
ally we would expect that they were near 
the meeting-house. All the facts prove 
this to have been so. We know that Wis- 
wall was buried in the old cemetery, his 
tombstone being still well preserved. 
Holmes was buried in the old cemetery, 
Justin Winsor says. He says the same of 
Standish, Alden, and Partridge. _ Mr. 
Winsor being evidently wrong in his lo- 
cation of the first church, would without 
doubt, grant that Standish, Alden, Par- 
tridge, Holmes, and all the other im- 
portant men of the town, who were buried 
here, were buried in the cemetery, where- 
ever it was. He and all of us agree it 
was near the first church. From his own 
book we can prove that the first ch\irch 
was not at Harden Hill nor, on Mrs. 
Thomas Chandler's farm, but north of 
Morton's Hole. Therefore, Partridge was 
buried there. 

Mather in his Magnalia tells us that 
Partridge died in Duxbury, and we le!\rn 
the same from all sources. 

When searching in the old graveyard, I 
found a most remarkable grave. It was 
llagged or paved with large stones on top, 
and these stones were at least eight or nine 
inches under the surface of the graveyard 
when I found them. Tlie roots of a 
cherry tree growing at some distance had 
netted themselves around the stones. 
These roots were (piite large. All tlie 
signs show that the grave is very old, and 
that it is that of one of the most im- 
portant of the first men in the town. It 
may be the grave of Elder Brewster or of 
the Rev. Mr. Partridge. The grave is 



16 



unique 5n the town, and, I believe, in the 
Colony. The suppositions brought to 
prove that Brewster was buried in Ply- 
mouth are very far from being conclusive. 
The supposed proofs alleged in favor of 
Plymouth, as his resting place, are strong- 
er when applied to Duxbury. 

We shall quote from the record of a 
grant of land, which is recorded in the 
handwriting of Alexander Staudish the 
i7th day of February 1G99-700, and in 
which the meeting-house is mentioned. 
"Whereas formerly a tract of land was 
granted by the town of Duxburrow to 
Joseph Chandler, lying between the meet- 
ing house road and Plymouth road, and 
was laid out to him but now no record to 
be found of it, we ensigne John Trasie, 
Thomas Delano and Abraham Sampson, 
being desired by Joseph Chandler, have 
laved out unto him twenty acres of land 
more or less bounded on the east by the 
meeting-house path to a red oak tree 
marked on four sides, and from said tree 
by a west southwest line to a pine tree 
which is the corner mark of the town's 
land and from the pine tree by the same 
line a range of trees marked until we 
come to a cart road where we marked a 
red oak sappling and then bounded by 
said path unto Plymouth road and by said 
road to the land of said Joseph Chandler 
and so by Joseph Chandler's line to the 
meeting-house path, this 17th day of 
February, 1699-700. 

Alexander Standisii, Town Clerk. 
John Trasie, 
Thomas Delano, 
Abraham Sampson. 

The value of this record is to prove the 
location of the meeting-house on a road 
running north and south, and that this 
road was the eastern boundary for the 
land given to Joseph Chandler. This rec- 
ord, taken in connection with the location 
of Joseph Chandler's lotted land and the 
Plymouth road, will give us an idea of 
the situation of the land lying between 
"the meeting-house road and the Ply- 
mouth road." It is very plain then that 
the meeting-house path here mentioned 
could not have been one going to Harden 
Hill, nor one leading to the farm of Mrs. 
Thomas Chandler. This deed refers to a 
time before the second church or meeting- 
house was built. 



CHAPTER Vm. 

From all these different facts we could 
conclusively prove that the first meeting- 
house was, in fact all meeting-houses, if 
you suppose two or more to have been in 
existence before 1706-7, were, located at 
the old cemetery. But we have still 
stronger and greater evidence. 



On Thursday, tlie 7th of May, 18'91, 1 
was examining old landmarks about the 
old cemetery m connection with the grave 
of Standish. I saw evident signs of two 
church sites on the ground. Following 
up this clue, and determined to prove 
whether I was right or wrong, I resolved 
to search all the old records of the town I 
coidd lay my hands on, and I followed 
this plan. I made up my mind that the 
settlers of the town would have built their 
meeting-house in a convenient place, as it 
served for all public purposes, and as the 
public pound and the stocks were usually 
near it. I concluded that the public high- 
ways would lead by it, and that in the 
boundaries of farms lying near the meet- 
ing house the meeting-house grounds 
would bo mentioned as a boundary line. 
From the foregoing results you can see 
how successful I was in proving what I 
suspected, that from the beginning the 
meeting-house was at the old cemetery be- 
tween Hall's and Bayley's Corners. 

I was not then so much surprised as 
pleased when I found the following entries 
in the old town records: — 

"At a town's meeting in Duxborough 
March, ye 20th 170 5-6 ye said meeting 
was adjourned to the third day of April 
next to consider of some way of raising of 
money to defray charges of repairing and 
enlarging their meeting-house either by 
selling some part of their common lands or 
by rate and also any other business that 
concerns said town." 

"April ye 3d anno 1706 at a town meet- 
ing in Duxborough, ye said town chose 
Mr. Seabury town treasurer, ye selectmen 
also appointed Mr. Seabury a viewer and 
gager of casks. 

At this town's meeting ye said town 
agreed and voted to build a new meeting- 
house forty foot long and thirty-three foot 
wide and seventeen foot high in ye walls 
and that the said meeting-house shall be 
set up within three or four rods of the old 
meeting-liouse now in being ye said town 
also ordered that some part of their comon 
lands should be sold to raise money to de- 
fray charges about building ye said meet- 
ing-house. These persons whose names 
are subscribed did protest against ye afore- 
said order of selling ye town's comon land 
for defraying ye charges about building 
ye said meeting-house. 

Lieut. Francis Barker, 

Robert Barker, 

Josiah Barker, 

Samuel Barker, 

Jabesh Barker, 

John Russel, 

Francis Barker, Junr." 
The meeting was adjourned from the 
3rd April 1706 to the next Wednesday at 
13 of the clock. This is the record of that 
meeting: 



17 

"April 10,1706 at a town's meeting in 
Duxborougli tlie said town voted to cluise 
two agents and cliose Cpt. Arnold and Mr. 
John Partridge to act for them ye said town 
on their account and at their charge In build - 
ing their new meeting house already voted 
to be built, that is to say to agree and bar- 
gain with a workman or workmen to build 
the said meeting-house and also to pro- 
vide whatsoever is necessary for the said 
building. 

The town also voted that the comon 
lands lying on the southeasterly side of 
the old Bay Rhoad yt goes from the North 
river to Mile Brook that runs into black- 
water and so down to ye heads of the lots 
and also the town lands on the easterly 
side of ye said Bay Road lying between 
Mile brook running into Pudding brook 
and Philips brook should be sold to defray 
the charges of building the new meeting- 
house that is to say so much of ye said 
comon lands as is needful. Ye said town 
also voted to chuse three agents to act for 
them in selling the said comon lands and 
chose Cpt. Arnold, John Partridge and 
Thomas Loring." 

"At a town's meeting in Duxborough 
Feb. 25, anno 170 6-7 Ye said town gave 
liberty to Benjamin Prior to remove his 
fence between ye meeting-house and 
his own house up to ye road and so for a 
time use that part of ye town comons pro- 
vided that he keeps up ye bounds where 
his former fence stood, ye said town also 
chose Capt. Arnold and John Partridge 
their agents to sell ye old meeting-house 
but not to deliver it before ye new meet- 
ing house is finished and excepting men's 
particular rights therein." 

"At a town's meeting in Duxborough 
upon the 16th of February anno dom. 170 
7-8 at this town meeting ye said town 
voted to give Mrs. Wiswall the ten pounds 
in money due to ye said town from Benja- 
min Prior in part for the old meeting- 
house in payment for part of a years 
salary due to Mr. Wiswall deceased which 
was never rated for." 

That the land was sold for the purpose 
of meeting the expenses of building the 
new meeting-house is evident from the 
list of sales and of money received by the 
agents appointed by the town for this pur- 
pose. It is not necessary to quote all these 
records, but we might mention the follow- 
ing as purchasers of land sold to pay for 
the meeting-house, viz: Jo. Chandler, 
Abraham Booth, Benjamin Kein, Josiah 
Kein, John Bishop, Samuel Bradford, 
Thomas Loring, Elisha Wadsworth, Jona- 
than Brewster, Mathew Kein, Josiah Soule, 
Jonathan Peterson, George Williamson, 
James Boney, Isaac Pierce, and Eaton 
Soule. 

From the records quoted for February, 
March, and April 1706, we gather the fol- 



lowing: (1) That there was a church, an 
old church, one needing repairs and en- 
largement, standing next to Benjamin 
Prior's land; (2) That a new church was 
built within three or four rods of the old 
one; (3) That both churches were on the 
ground at the same time as the old one 
Was not to be delivered until the new one 
was ready for occupation; (4) That the rec- 
ords speak of the church sold to Benja- 
min Prior, as for sale in February 1706-7, 
and of its sale in February, 1707-8. The 
new meeting-house must have been built 
at this time and the following record 
proves this: "Reckoned with ye town 
agents Feb'y ye 25th anno 1707. Then 
received of said agents the sum of one 
hundred and eighty pounds in full for 
building ye meeting-house in Duxbury. I 
say received by me, Samuel Sprague." 
This building stood until June 7, 1785. 

These records prove how correct was 
my conclusion, that two churches were 
located at the old cemetery on different 
sites at some past time, and we see that 
there were two such churches within three 
or four rods of each other. So much be- 
ing proved disposes at once and forever 
of all suppositions of the first church or 
any church before 1706, having stood 
elsewhere than at the cemetery between 
Hall's and Bayley's Corners. 

Following out the boundaries of farms 
and the directions of the highways en- 
abled us to locate the old church beyond 
all dispute at the old cemetery. The full 
proofs brought to light in the records re- 
move all doubt if any could have remained. 
Here then from 1638 the meeting-house 
stood, and it is not necessary to go into 
any hypothesis about churchyards 
following churches, or churches follow- 
ing churchyards, in order to locate our 
old burial ground. Both were together 
as had always been the case. 

It will be borne in mind that when 
Plymouth and Duxbury, through the 
committees appointed from both towns, 
tried to agree on some site between both 
for the building of a church and town for 
greater strength and protection by the 
union of all, seven members of the joint 
committees voted to locate the church and 
town at Jones' river and two voted for 
Morton's Hole. 

These committees were appointed by 
the Old Colonv court on the 2nd of March, 
1635-36, and on the 21st of March, 1635- 
36, the committees met and voted as above. 
Morton's Hole was so called from a large 
hole in the flats to the west of Captain's 
Hill, almost behind Mr. Ira Chandler's 
house. The vicinity around this was the 
site intended for the new town. 

Morton's Hole Creek was there to supply 
them with water. Captain's Hill was 
there as a strougliold; and the people of 



18 



Duxbury undoubtedly built their church 
there, perhaps having in view the possi- 
bility of a later union with Plymouth at 
this very place. 

The nature of the lands about Harden 
Hill and Mrs. Thomas Chandler's farm, 
the direction of the highways, the boun- 
daries of the farms, the residences of the 
ministers, the conveniences of the worship- 
pers and of the voters, the traditions of 
the town, all tell plainly and forcibly that 
there never was a church at Harden Hill 
or at Mrs. Thomas Chandler's. Both 
these theories were based on false assump- 
tions of facts, which facts, even If conced- 
ed as such, could not lead to the conclu- 
sion that Standish was buried in either 
place in the face of the overwhelming 
testimony against such a conclusion. The 
upholders of the Chandler farm theory 
have had neither fact nor authority to sus- 
tain them. The upholders of the Harden 
Hill theory had not any facts, but they 
had the authority of Mr. Justin Winsor. 
Mr. Winsor's authority has been shaken, 
and his theory about Harden Hill falls to 
the ground. 



CHAPTER IX. 

We know now where the first meeting- 
house was, and where the old cemetery 
was located. 

We know that Standish died between 
the 7th March, 1655, the date of his will, 
and the 4th May, 1657, when his will was 
exhibited in the court at Plymouth and 
recorded. Captain James Cudworth was 
the witness to the will. We are told that 
Standish died on the 3d October, 1656. 
He could not have died before 1656, for 
he was appointed one of the assistants to 
the governor that year. 

At his death in 1656 Standish was the 
chief military officer. He was "a man 
full of years and honored by his genera- 
tion." 

Nathaniel Morton, the secretary of the 
Colony from 1645 to 1685, tells us of 
Standish: "He growing very ancient be- 
came sick of the stone or strangullion, 
whereof after his suffering of much 
flolorous pain, he fell asleep in the Lord 
and was honorably buried at Duxbury." 

Nathaniel Morton was the son of George 
Morton who came in the Ann in 1623; 
George had married the sister of Governor 
Bradford. Nathaniel was born in 1612 
and died in 1685. He was secretary of the 
Colony for forty years. He was also sec- 
retary of the united colonies, the com- 
piler of valuable church records now in 
existence from the origin of the Leyden 
church, and author of the New England 
Memorial. In a copy of the Memorial in 
the library of the Massachusetts Historical 
society and which belonged to Prince, 



Mr. .Prince wrote in the margin the fol 
lowing note, from which we determine the 
day of Standish's death, which is not re- 
corded elsewhere. The portions in brack- 
ets are gone and are supplied from con- 
jecture. 'In ye list at ye e[nd] of Gour. 
Bradford's MSS Folio tis writ yt Capt. 
Standish died Oct. 3, 1655. But his son 
Wm's Table Book says Oct. 3, 1656 and 
Capt. Standish being chosen assist[ant] in 
1656 showes that his death must [have oc- 
curred in this last year.]' 

In the Old Colony Records for October, 
1656, Standish is cited as prosecutor for a 
case to be called on the 5th October. 

From this evidence, and from Standish's 
will, and Governor Prince's copy of the 
Memorial, we see that Standish died in 
1656, and from Morton's evidence we see 
that he was honorably buried in Duxbury. 
That he was buried in Duxbury there can 
be no doubt, and there never has been any 
doubt. In his will he speaks of his burial 
place: "My will is that out of my whole 
estate my funeral charges to be taken out, 
and my body to be buried in a decent 
manner, and if I die in Duxburrow, my 
body to be laid as near as conveniently 
may be to my two dear daughters, Lora 
Standish, my daughter, and Mary Stan- 
dish, my daughter in law." History, 
written and traditional, records that Stan- 
dish was buried in Duxbury. 

That he was buried honorably is tes- 
tified by the words of Nathaniel Mor- 
ton, and by the position the Captain 
occupied at his death as the chief mil- 
itary oflacer of the colony. His life of 
devoted service to the interests of the 
colony and of the town in whicli he 
lived, would guarantee that he would be 
honorably buried. There was no secrecy 
about the funeral. If he were, as Morton 
says, honorably buried, he must have been 
buried with due public pomp and cere- 
mony and with manifestations of public 
sorrow. The notion that he was buried 
secretly on account of the Indians is the 
suggestion of those who believed that his 
grave could not be discovered. Tliere 
was no necessity for concealing his death 
from the Indians. When Standish died 
the Indians were on friendly terms with 
the colonists. From 1637 to 1675 there 
was peace between the Indians and the 
settlers. At Standish's death there was 
peace. The Indians must have known of 
iiis death. Many Indians resided in the 
town and we know that in 1656 there 
were many "praying" Indians, that is 
believers in Christianity. Before Stan- 
dish's death many of the settlers had died, 
and tliis must have been known to the In- 
dians. At Standish's death the colony was 
unite strong and confident of being able 
to protect itself. Several hundred im- 
migrants liad come since the first landing 



19 



at Plymouth, and it was not so necessary 
to conceal the few deaths that might take 
place from time to time, as it was to con 
ceal the deaths of almost half the settlers 
during the first year or so. especially when 
tlie small number of the passengers in the 
Mayllower is borne in mind. .Several 
towns were settled, and each town had 
its company of citizen soldiers ready to 
ilefend tlie colony. 

People so superstitious as the Indians 
would hardly be inclined to believe that 
Standish was dead, even if they heard the 
report. Their strange beliefs concerning 
the dead, and their supposed fear of the 
Captain, would have inclined them to be- 
lieve that the invincible Captain was even 
in death fighting against them. Above 
all it is absolutely certain that the Indi- 
ans, if they knew that Standish was dead, 
and knew where his grave was, would not 
dare to interfere with his remains. Their 
strange superstitious fears of the Captain 
in death would have protected his body 
from being disturbed by them. 

But even granting that Standish was 
buried secretly on account of the Indians 
how will this prove that the settlers them- 
selves, his brothers in arms, his friends, 
his neighbors, his children, did not know 
of his death and his last resting place? 
The conclusion drawn by some, that Stan- 
dish was secretly buried on account of the 
Indians, and therefore the colonists them- 
selves knew nothing of his burial place is 
without any foundation. 

Standish speaks in his will of the buri.il 
place of his children as a well known 
place. He asks to be buried with them. 
Without doubt he was buried with them, 
and he was buried with due pomp. His 
old soldiers must have come to his funeral. 
The old mothers of the colony must have 
spoken of his death. They could not for- 
get the brave man who so often risked 
his own life for theirs and their child- 
ren's. 

Does anyone think that Morton would 
have said that Standish was honorably 
buried, if Morton knew that he had been 
secretly buried? Would Morton not have 
mentioned that he was secretly buried 
when writing of the funeral? 

What would be the use of trying to 
keep the Captaios death a secret, seeing 
that his will was publicly exhibited in 
court in 1657? 

Another reason given by some to ac- 
count for the impossibility of locating the 
Captain's grave is, that he was a Roman 
Catholic, and that he refused to be buried 
in the town's graveyard with the Pilgrims 
who were Protestants. This is a very 
absurd explanation to afford for private 
inability to successfully locate Standish's 
grave. 

Standish had too frequently faced death 



with his fellow soldiers in the wars of 
Europe and New Kngland, to be scrupu- 
lous about being burled willi tliose who 
were not Komuii Catholics. Were he a 
lioman Catholic in the sense of tiiat term 
he would never have come to New Eng- 
land with the Pilgrims, never liave Ixjcn 
chosen their captam, their special friend, 
and representative; he would never have 
sworn fidelity to the constitution of the 
new colony, which constitution was and is 
essentially oi)posed to Roman Catholicism. 
Standish was a regular attendant at tlie 
services of the church of the Pilgrims. 
We have already quoted the document he 
signed, promising to return to Plymouth 
in the winter time that he might "the 
better repair to the worship of Ood." 
The document reads. 

"Ano 1G33 ) The names of those which 

Aprell 3 f promi.se to remove their 

fam[illes] to live in the town in the winter 

time, that they m[ay] the better repair to 

the worship of God. 

John Alden, 
Capt. Standish, 
Jonathan Brewster, 
Thomas Prence." 

Besides we know that he brought his 
family up in the town church and that his 
eldest surviving son, Alexander, was for 
many years a deacon in the churcli of 
Duxbury. 

The Pilgrims came here to pnjny liberty 
of conscience. It is IkikHv iikely that 
there were mmv Uuniuu Catholics among 
ikem. The whole genius of the Pilgrim 
movement was not only distinct from, but 
opposed to, the spirit of the Roman church. 
How the Pilgrim governor ordered the 
place called "Hue's Cross" to be known as 
"Hue's Folly"! Not much toleration for 
things Roman Catholic in that. Even if 
he were a Roman Catholic, how would that 
prove that the people who "honorably 
buried" him did not know where they 
buried him? How would it prove that 
his children and his neighbors did not know 
where he was buried? His will was that 
he should be buried in a well-known place 
near his daughter and his daughter-in law. 
There could not have been any secrecy 
about his funeral. 

In 1643 in the towns of Plymouth, Dux- 
bury, and Marshtield, a company, or mili- 
tary discipline, with Standish as r«i>tain 
was formed. The fourteenth article of 
the constitution of this company was: 
"That no one be admitted except he takes 
the oath of fidelity—" this was fidelity to 
the Colony. The thirteenth article reads, 
that upon the death of any member "tiie 
company upon warning shall come to- 
gether with their arms and inter his corpse 
as a soldier and according to his place and 
quallytye." We may be sure that the 



20 



soldiers of the Colony carried out this 
article at the funeral of their captain. It 
must not be forgotten that Standish was 
the military leader of the Colony during 
his life. 

Justin Winsor tells us that church mem- 
bership was a "necessary qualification" 
for a freeman of Duxbury until about 
1GG4 (eight years after Standish's death), 
when the people became more tolerant of 
men who were not church members. This 
qualification was removed only in 1686. 

Why should Standish refuse to be buried 
with the Protestants, even if he was a 
Roman Catholic? There was no Roman 
Catholic burial place for him. Did we 
grant that he was a Roman Catholic, this 
would rather be an argument that he 
would wish to be buried with baptised 
men and women, his friends, rather than 
alone like an animal on the edge of a 
swamp, or on a corner of his farm. 
Standish was a man of too large instincts 
for such a narrow mindedness. 

He was buried publicly, with his chil- 
dren, and the men who buried him and his 
surviving relatives would know where he 
was buried. 

One last objection remains, that the 
grave of Standish was leveled that the 
Indians might not know of his death, or 
of his resting place, and therefore we can 
not tell where his grave Is. The men who 
buried him would know where he was 
buried, and his grave could not be leveled 
unless those who supposedly leveled it 
knew where it was. These suppositions 
are all without foundation and devoid of 
weight. 

CHAPTER X. 

There has always been a tradition in 
the town that the Standish burial place 
was marked by two peculiar stones lying 
due east and west about six feet apart. 
Mr. Justin Winsor in his History of Dux- 
bury, speaks of this tradition. He says: 
"There are, a short distance easterly from 
the site, (to what site Mr. Winsor refers 
it is not easy to see; perhaps the site of 
the Captain's home) two stones of con- 
siderable size, which are about six feet 
apart, and were thought to mark, per- 
chance, the grave of some one of the fam- 
ily. A few years ago Investigations were 
made, but without affording any founda- 
tion for the supposition." In a foot-note 
Mr. Winsor says: "Their peculiar shape 
(that is the peculiar shape of the two 
stones), though evidently in their rough 
state, and the fact tliat their position to 
each other was exactly east and west, in- 
duced some persons to dig between them 
in hopes of making a discovery. Excava- 
tions were accordingly made to the depth 
of eight feet, without, however, any suc- 



cess. In a biographical sketch of the 
author, appended to Capt. Samuel De- 
lano's Voyages, and written in 1817, it is 
stated in speaking of Capt. Standish, 
'Here he died; and some aged people in 
the close of the last century pointed out 
the spot where he was buried.' Mr. Winsor 
then tells of an antiquarian friend who 
.commenced his researches in Duxbury 
about 1827, and who was unable to verify 
oral tradition, nor could he find any trace 
of such a tradition among the octoge- 
narians of that time. 

From these facts we gather that a few 
years before 1849 (when Mr. Winsor pub- 
lished his history) a search was made in a 
spot pointed out by two stones under the 
impression that Standish, or some of his 
family, might have been buried there. 
Earlier than that, In 1817. the author of 
Captain Delano's Voiages mentions the 
tradition about Captain Standish and says 
that some aged people in the close of the 
last century pointed out where Standish 
was buried. These traditions when prop- 
erly weighed and examined are of tlie 
greatest historic worth. Mr. Winsor's 
antiquarian friend, the Rev. Mr. Kent, 
who began his researches in 1827, or 
thereabouts, must have been misinformed, 
or else he did not come In contact with 
the right people. That the tradition has 
always been in the town Is too evident. 

The facts cited by Mr. Winsor attest 
the existence of the tradition. That his 
friend was unable to meet anyone to tell 
him of the tradition, is of no consequence 
In the face of the contrary facts, and the 
value of this friend's negative testimony 
would depend largely on the manner in 
which he investigated. From the evi- 
dence produced, from the records about 
the old meeting-house, it is clear that an- 
tiquarians in Duxbury have been very 
superficial In their searches and very easily 
satisfied with proofs. They seem to have 
been more successful in creating con- 
fusion and In spreading imaginary theories 
than in bringing to light any fact concern- 
ing the grave of Standish. 



CHAPTER XI. 

Mrs. Ruth Standish Hall, a descendant 
in the fifth generation from Standish, died 
in 1873 at the advanced age of 94 years. 
Mrs. Hall lived at Hall's Corner, being 
the wife of Captain Daniel Hall, and the 
mother of Miss Caroline B. Hall, who now 
lives in the Hall homestead at Hall's 
Corner, Duxbury. Mrs. Hall was a wo- 
man of remarkable brightness of mind 
until the time of her death, and her mem- 
ory was unfailing. Mrs. Hall often told 
her daughter, Miss Caroline B. Hall, and 
others that the burial place of Standish 



21 



was marked with two triangular pyra- 
midal stones. When she was a young girl 
she was visiting at the house of Doctor 
John Wadsworth (who was born in 170(J 
and died in 1799), and she heard him in- 
vite two gentlemen who were visiting him 
to go and see the grave of Myles Standish. 
After the gentlemen and the Doctor had re- 
turned to the Doctor's home, Mrs. Hall, 
at that time unmarried, beard the Doctor 
and his guests speak of the strange stones 
that marked the burial place, and heard 
the Doctor express his surprise that two 
such stones, triangular pyramids, could 
have been found for that purpose. This 
tradition Mrs. Hall frequently mentioned. 
Let us now examine the value of this 
tradition. If it were false, a proof could 
easily be supplied by digging in the place 
pointed out. If it were true, the graves 
would agree in their testimony with the 
testimony of the Captain's will. Dr. 
Wadsworth could have had no induce- 
ment to tell a lie about the matter. 

But what positive value has Doctor 
John Wadsworth's testimony';' His testi- 
mony is of value in proportion to his op- 
portunities of knowing the truth, and his 
power of remembering it and handing it 
down. 

That Doctor John Wadsworth was a 
capable and trustworthy witness, all ad- 
mit. He was considered one of the lead- 
ing men of the town in his time. His 
history shows a man of great power and 
originality. He was born in 1706 and 
died in 1799. He was the great grandson 
of Christopher Wadsworth, who was one 
of the most important of the first settlers. 
This Christopher was over and over again 
one of the chief officers of the town. His 
land included all the land now occupied 
by Ellis Peterson, Mrs. Thomas Chandler, 
Mrs. Myrick, George Frank Ryder. George 
Torrey' Fernando Wadsworth, and all the 
land of the farms lying inside these farms 
as well as much that lay outside these 
bounds. Christopher Wadsworth was 
alive in 1677, as his will then made, testi- 
fies. He lived twenty-one years after the 
death of Standish. He undoubtedly knew 
where Staijdish was buried. 

Christopher Wadsworth's wife, Grace, 
was alive in 1687. 

Christopher Wadsworth's eldest son 
Joseph, was alive in 1689. 

All these three would have known of 
the burial place of the Standlshes, and 
have told their children about it. 

Christopher's son. Deacon John Wads- 
worth, was born in 16;?8 and died in 1700. 
This John was 18 years of age when 
Standish was buried. Of his own knowl- 
edge, and from his father, mother, and 
others of the older people, he would most 
certainly have known the burial place of 
Standish. The wife of this Deacon John 



was Al)igail Andrews, who died in 1723. 
Tliis Deacon Joiin was the grandfather of 
Dr. John Wadswortli. So far then the 
Wadsworths liad every opportunity of 
knowing all about the last resting place of 
Captain Standish. 

The father of Doctor John Wadsworth, 
the son of the first Deacon Jobn, was 
Deacon John Wadswortli tlie second. 

He married Mercy Wiswall, the daugh 
ter of Kev. Ichabod Wiswall, who died in 
1700, and who had been minister to the 
town from 1676 to 1700. Tins Deacon 
John died in 1700. He would have had 
the tradition in a direct line from his 
grandmother, his grandfather, his father, 
and other living witnesses of the Captain's 
funeral. When this second Deacon Wads- 
worth died, his son. Dr. John, was 44 
years of age, and was capable of receiving 
the tradition, and of handing it down. 
When Doctor John's grandmother died, 
the Doctor was 17 years of age. We 
might add the evidence of Elisha Wads- 
worth, who was alive after 1714, and 
whose wife died 1741. This Elisha was 
the son of Joseph, the eldest son of 
Christopher, the founder of the family in 
Duxbury. We might also add the testi- 
mony of Captain Wait Wadsworth, the son 
of Elisha, who was alive as late as 1708. 

So much for Wadsworth evidence. But 
Doctor John could have learned of the 
burial place of the Captain from many 
others. 

Mrs. Alexander Standish, the wife of 
Standish's eldest son, was alive 1723. She 
would have known from her husband, 
who died in 1702, where the Captain was 
buried. And so of others. But the wife 
of Doctor John was Mary Alden, who was 
the daughter of Benjamin, the son of 
David, the son of John Alden. Now John 
Alden died in 1687, thirty -one years after 
the death of Standish. Alden would have 
known where Standish was buried. His 
son, David, was thirty years of age when 
Standish died. He, too, would have 
known where the Captain was buried. 
Mary Alden would thus have known 
through her grandfather, great-grand- 
father, and others, relatives and friends, 
where Standish and his daughters were 
buried. Thus Doctor Wadsworth wovdd 
have the very best evidence on his own 
side and on his wife's as to the burial 
place of Myles Standish. David Alden 
here mentioned was born in 1626 and was 
alive in 1679; his brother, Jonathan Alden, 
was born in 1627 and died in 1697, and 
Abigail, the wife of Jonathan, died in 
172.J. Here are many other links con- 
necting the generation of Dr. Wadsworth 
with the generation alive in the time of 
Standish. The links could be multiplied 
many times over. 



22 



From this it will be seen that Doctor 
Wadsworth had the very best opportuni- 
ties for knowing about Standish's burial 
place, and from all we can learn the Doc- 
tor was a very reliable witness. His evi- 
dence was that Standish was buried in the 
south eastern part of the town, in a church 
grave-yard, and that two triangular pyra- 
mids of stone marked the burial place. 
This evidence of the stones can be found 
only in the grave-yard between Hall's and 
Bayley's Corners. All the traditions are 
verified there. The graves themselves 
speak in evidence. When Doctor AVads- 
worth died, Mrs. Ruth Hall was twenty 
years of age. She was a descendant of 
Standish, being the daughter of Olive, the 
daughter of David, the son of Thomas, 
the son of Alexander Standish. This last 
was the son of the Captain and died in 
1702, his second wife dying in 1728. 
Mrs. Hall, being a direct descendant of 
Standish, would take a deeper interest in 
all traditions about him than most people, 
and she handed down to her daughter and 
others the testimony she received from 
Dr. John Wadsworth. 

Miss Caroline B. Hall, above mentioned, 
died in April, 1892; the writer attended 
her funeral. 



CHAPTER Xn. 

The second line of testimony trans- 
mitted through Mrs. Hall is that coming 
from the Prior family. The Priors lived 
around the first church. One of them, 
Benjamin Prior, bought the old church 
when it was sold in 1707. The Prior fam- 
ily always lived in that part of the town 
around the old graveyard between Hall's 
and Bayley's Corners. The Prior tradition 
is, that Myles Standish was buried in the 
old graveyard just mentioned, and that 
his burial place was marked by two trian- 
gular, pyramidal stones. The Priors 
would have known the Standishes, and 
the Wadsworths, and the Aldens, and the 
Brewsters, and all the other families. 
They all attended the same church, and 
the same town meetings in the church, 
and they would have frequently talked of 
the Captain and his burial place. There 
were then no newspapers, no great num- 
ber of books, to distract attention, and the 
families gathered around the log fires in 
the evenings would have talked over the 
first settlers and their lives and deaths. 
Thus the knowledge of Standish's grave 
would be general. Thus in every sense 
the evidence would be tested. 

The Prior tradition is clear and strong. 
Benjamin Prior, the last of the fa mily, 
Avho inherited the family place, was born 
in 177.5 and died in 1807. He told Mrs. 
Ruth Hall that Standish was buried be- 



tween Hall's and Bayley's Corners, in the 
old cemetery, and that two triangidar, 
pyramidal stones marked the place. Mrs. 
Hall wrote this testimony in her scrap- 
book where it is yet to be seen. Mr. Prior 
told Mrs. Hall that the Prior family al- 
ways held the above tradition, which 
came down from his great-grandfather, 
who was a boy of ten years of age when 
Standish died, and who handed down the 
tradition concerning the grave with the 
added circumstances that he, only a boy 
of ten years of age, remembered the fu- 
neral, which took place in the graveyard 
near his father's home. This evidence 
coming from young Prior (who, as he 
grew older, would have most abundant 
opportunities for having the independent 
testimony of the Standishes, the Aldens, 
the Wadsworths, the Brewsters, the 
Spragues, etc., etc.,) is of great value. 
The location of his father's home was 
such as to give the boy an opportunity of 
seeing the funeral, and week by week as 
he went to service, or as he went to the 
town's meetings in later life, he would 
have been reminded of the funeral scene 
he had seen when a boy. It must be 
borne in mind that we are not dependent 
on the evidence of the boy, Prior, simply 
as a boy, in this matter. His evidence, 
confirmed by his elders and handed down 
afterwards to his son, then to his grand- 
son, and finally to his great-grandson, 
comes to us with every mark of weight 
and authority. The last Benjamin Prior, 
who told the family tradition to Mrs. Hall, 
was born in 1775 and died in 1867. His 
father was born in 1740, his grandfather 
in 1699, and his great-grandfather in 1646. 
Each of these was named Benjamin. 
There could have been no inducement for 
any of the Priors to tell a lie about the 
burial place of Standish. The He could 
be easily detected by opening the graves. 
The graves were opened, and, as we shall 
see, everything proved the truth of the 
tradition here given. 

Another tradition is that of the Brews- 
ter family. The Brewsters lived near 
Standish, and they would have known of 
the Captain's burial place. Mr. Melzar 
Brewster (a direct descendant of the Elder) 
who lives to the east of the old cemetery 
near Hail's Corner, told the tradition of the 
family, received from his father and 
grandfather, that Standish was buried in 
the old cemetery between Hall's and Bay- 
ley's Corners. This, Mr. Melzar Brewster 
said, was the constant tradition in the 
Brewster family; and besides he said that 
all the old people of the town, whom he 
remembered, always said that this old 
cemetery was the onlv cemetery in the 
early town, and the oldest one in town. 

The tradition in the Faunce family is 
the same. The Faunces bought the farm 



23 



of Myles Standish within three years after 
the great-grandson of Myles had sold it 
For one hundred years at least the FaiinceR 
held this farm. Their tradition is, that 
the first church and churchyard were 
where the old cemetery now is near Hall's 
Corner, that Myles Standish was buried 
there, that there never was a church or 
churchyard in any other part of the town 
until 178B or 1784, and that the day on 
which Standish was buried was the storm- 
iest day the new town had felt from its 
foundation. This last circumstance would 
fix the minds of the people on the funer- 
al of the Captain. 

The traditions are all clear and well de- 
fined, having been cherished in the fami- 
lies that lived near Standish and around 
the graveyard. It is impossible to find a 
tradition of any antiquity or value assign- 
ing any other place as the burial place of 
Standish. 

The traditions about the Standish burial 
place exclude the notion that Standish 
was buried elsewhere than in the cemetery 
between Hall's and Bayley's Corners. 



CHAPTER Xni. 

Besides those already mentioned as hav- 
ing been alive at the time of the funeral 
of Standish and as being most likely to 
know all about it, we may also mention 
the following persons who lived in the 
town at the time. These persons would 
have known where Standish was buried, 
and would have served as witnesses to 
transmit the tradition. 

Robert Barker, who was admitted a free- 
man of Duxbury in 1654, and died be- 
tween 1689 and 1692, the dates of his will 
and of the inventory of his estate, 

Benjamin Bartlett, who was admitted 
in 1654, and married Sarah Brewster; he 
died in 1691. 

William Bassett, who died in 1669, and 
had land near the Nook, beside Sprague's 
land. 

Thomas Boney, the town shoemaker, 
admitted in 1640 and died about 169:5. 
Shoemakers heard all town news. 

Major William Bradford born in 1624 
and died in 1703. 

Deacon William Brewster, (son of Love 
Brewster,) who died in 1723, being seventy- 
eight years of age. 

Wrestling Brewster, son of Love Brew- 
ster, died in 1607. Love Brewster, the 
father of Deacon William and of Wrest- 
ling, married in 1634, and he had Nathaniel 
William, Wrestling and Sarah. Sarah 
married Benjamin Bartlett in 1656, the year 
Standish died. 

There were several members of the 
Chandler family alive when Standish 
was buried and for many years afterwards. 



Thomas Clark, who arrived in 1623 and 
died in 1697, at the age of 97 years. 

Mr. William Collier died about 1671. 

Philip Delano admitted in 1632, died 
about 1681. His son Philip was born 
about 1635, and lived to be over eighty 
years of age; his son Thomas was born 
about 1636 or 1637, and was alive in 1099, 
when he married his second wife, his first 
wife having been a daughter of John 
Alden. John, the son of the first Philip, 
was born about or before 1640, and was 
alive in 1690. Samuel, another son, born 
a little after 1640, married Elizabeth, 
daughter of Alexander Standish, and was 
alive in 1686 and later. 

William Ford, who lived in Duxbury as 
early as 1643 and died in 1676, aged 82 
years. 

Josiah Holmes married Hannah, daugh- 
ter of Henry Sampson, and he was alive in 
1679. 

John Howland died in 1672, aged eighty 
years. His wife, Elizabeth Tilliedied 1687, 
aged eighty-one years. 

Henry Howland, of Duxbury in 1633, 
died in 1670. He was one of the substan- 
tial freemen of the town. 

John Pabodie, of Duxbury in 1637, died 
about 1666. His son William was born in 
1620. -'A man much employed in public 
affairs and of much respectability." 

William married Elizabeth Alden in 
1644 and died in 1707 aged 87 years. She 
died in 1717 in Little Compton, aged 93 
years. William Pabodie lived near Stan- 
dish and Brewster, and had thirteen chil- 
dren, eleven being daughters. One daugh- 
ter, Priscilla, married Rev. Mr. Wiswall ; 
she died in 1720. 

George Partridge, a yeoman, in 1636. 
He married Sarah Tracy in 1638, and died 
about 1695. His daughter Lydia married 
Deacon William Brewster and died in 1743. 
His daughter Triephosa married Samuel 
West. Samuel died in 1689; Triephosa 
died in 1701. Another daughter married 
Rhodolphus Thacher. 

John Rogers, of Duxbury in 1634, was 
alive in 1660, the date of his will. His son 
John died about 1696; this son had married 
Elizabeth Pabodie in 1666; she was born in 
1647. 

Henry Sampson, who came to Duxbury 
with Standish and lived near him, and 
whose son Caleb married Mercy, daughter 
of Alexander Standish, died in 1684. 
Henry's son, Stephen, lived in Duxbury 
and died in 1714. 

Abraham Sampson admitted a freeman 
in 1654. was alive in 168(i. He lived in 
Duxbury from 163S. His son Abraham 
married Sarah, daughter of Alexander 
Standish, and this son was alive long after 
1690. Isaac Sampson, son of tl»e first 
Abraham married another daughter of 
Alexander Standish; he died in 1726. 



24 



Members of the Seabury, Simmons, and 
Soule families were also in town at Stan- 
dish's death, and lived many years after 
that event. 

Constant Southworth, born 1615, mar 
ried Elizabeth Collier in 1637; died in 
1679. He was in town when Standish 
died. 

Francis Spraisrue, admitted in 1637, was 
alive in 1666. His son John, who married 
Ruth Bassett. was killed in 1676. 

Alexander Standish, the eldest surviving 
son of Myles, died in 1702, and his second 
wife in 1723. 

Captain Josiah, Standish son of Myles, 
lived in Duxburv where he was admitted a 
freeman in 1655. After a time he went to 
Bridgewater, but returned to Duxbury in 
1663. Finally he left Duxbury in 1686 and 
went to Norwich, Conn. 

Myles Standish, son of Alexander, lived 
in Duxbury and died in 1739. His wife. 
Experience, died in 1743 or 1744. 

Ebenezer, a son of Alexander Standish, 
died in 1734, being 62 years of age. 

Myles Standish, the son of Myles, the 
the son of Alexander, the son of the Cap- 
tain, was born in 1714, inherited the home- 
stead, and in 1763 sold it to Samuel and 
Sylvanus Drew, who sold to Wait Wads- 
worth, who sold it to John Faunce. 

Rhodolphus Thacher. who married Ruth 
Partridge, was alive in 1686. 

From all these names, and many others 
might be added, it will be seen that very 
many witnesses would have been able to 
hand down the tradition of the funeral 
and burial place of Standish. Undoubted- 
ly these people often spoke of the brave 
Captain and told all of his life and death 
they knew. The chain of evidence could 
not be stronger. It is well to observe the 
dates and the intermarriages in the above 
list. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

We now come to the graves. For a 
great many years the old cemetery was 
neglected. There were no fences around 
it and roaming cattle strayed over it. 
The people seemed to neglect their dead 
ancestors. This was so for a great many 
years. People so careless of the graves o'f 
their dead would hardly have been the 
ones to care much for the traditions of 
the past concerning these dead. An 
end was ]iut to this worse than indilTer- 
ence by tlie Rural Society of Duxbury. 
The Society sent a man to repair the 
fences and to tit up the graveyard. Mr. 
Melzar Brewster did this, and did it well. 
When at work Mr. Brewster found two 
stones marking the burial place of Lora 
Standish; tliey were covered with sand. 
Mr. Brewster raised them to tlie surface 
in the exact pla( es where he found them. 



Everyone was struck by the remarkable 
appearance of the stones and the old 
traditions about the Standish burial place 
were again brought to light. 

The Duxbury Rural Society at last de- 
termined to test the tradition and obtained 
permission from the selectmen to dig in 
the place marked by the stones. Mr. 
Fredrick B. Knapp of Duxbury was presi- 
dent of the Rural Society and had charge 
of the searching party. In April 1889 
the following were present at the first 
opening of any of the graves: Mr. F. B. 
Knapp, Mrs. Knapp, Miss Lucia Brad- 
ford, Mr. Lawrence Bradford, Miss Ford, 
Miss Caroline B. Hall of Duxbury, Mr. 
C. N. B. Wheeler, Mr. Sidney Lawrence, 
Mr. Rounseville of Powder Point school, 
Duxbury; Professor A. B. Hart of Hav- 
ard Mr. Charles M. Gaines, Duxbury; Mr. 
C. M. Doten of Old Colony Memorial 
Plymouth, and Dr. Jones of Kingston. 
The first grave opened was that marked 
by the two triangular pyramids of stone. 
The skeleton of a young woman was 
found; her teeth were all in the jaw 
bones, and were in a splendid state of 
preservation; her hair was a large coil of 
light color. From the fact that all the 
teeth were present, the young woman 
must have been nearly twenty years of 
age, and from the fact that they show 
very little sign of usage, she could not 
have been much over twenty years of 
age. The skeleton measured five feet 
two inches as it lay. All the indications 
pointed to a young woman about twenty 
or perhaps twenty-five. Those who saw 
the skeleton and were capable of forming 
a judgment of any value, all came to this 
conclusion: The formation of the skull 
was peculiar, so much so that all remarked 
it. The remains were placed in a coffin 
prepared on the spot and rcburied. Parts 
of the original coffin were in a fair state of 
preservation. The ground is a sand-hill, 
and the nature of the spot has a great pre- 
servative power. 

On the same day another grave was 
opened on the north side of the young 
woman's. Here a man's skeleton was 
found. The skeleton was nearly perfect. 
It was measured as it lay in the ground. 
It measured five feet seven inches. There 
was one tooth in the lower jaw. This 
tooth was very much worn. The cavities 
in the jaws where the teeth had been im- 
bedded were filled in with ossified matter. 
There was a quantity of hair on the skull. 
The hair seemed to be of a brownish red. 
The bones indicated a man of powerful 
build and strength. Dr. Wilfred G. Brown 
of Duxbury, who saw the remains when 
they were placed in a new coffin, when the 
grave was opened a second time, in 1891, 
said he had never seen a skeleton giving 
such indications of physical strength. 



The skull was, perhaps, the most remark- 
able part of the skeleton; it was in con- 
formation exactly like the skull of the 
young woman on his right hand side, and 
all present remarked their likeness to the 
formation of the head of Miss Caroline B. 
Hall, who was present, a descendant from 
the Captain. 

The Rural Society committee proceeded 
no further. Some believed that Standish 
was buried here; others denied it, or denied 
that any proofs of it were given. Some 
measurements of the Captain's skull were 
taken by Doctor Brown in 1891; the skull 
was 21 inches above occipital protuberance, 
it was 214 inches around, it was 14^ inches 
over the parietal bone from the bottom of 
the petrus portion of the parietal bone. 

For two years nothing more was done 
about the Captain's burial place. As yet 
no one had taken the trouble to make an 
exhaustive and valuable search for the 
graves, and a careful examination of the 
evidence. During the early part of the 
spring of 1891 Dr. Wilfred G. Brown of 
Duxbury and the writer, after some con- 
versations with Miss Caroline B. Hall, de- 
termined to test all the traditions to the 
utmost. Permission was obtained from 
selectmen to open more graves. The 
opening took place on Saturday, April 25, 
1891. The following were present: Dr. 
Wilfred G. Brown, Duxbury; Prof. C. N. 
B. Wheeler, Duxbury; Logan Waller 
Page of Richmond, Va. ; Charles Bartlett, 
Duxbury; Rev. E. J. V. Huiginn, Dux- 
bury; Mrs. Frederick B. Knapp, Miss 
Ford, Miss Florence Ford, Miss Jacobs, 
Miss Loring, Miss Bartlett and Jliss Clara 
H. Sampson. Mr. C. M. Doten of the 
Old Colony Memorial came later in the 
afternoon. The gentlemen above named 
opened a deep and long trench south of 
the grave of the young woman (Lora 
Standish) whose grave is marked by the 
two stones. No trace of a grave was 
found; the soil was hard for its nature; 
the layers of sand seemed never to have 
been disturbed before. Turning their at- 
tention to the north side of the man's 
grave (Captain Standish's), the diggers 
found the grave of a woman. The skele- 
ton had a great coil of brown hair and a 
perfect set of most beautiful teeth. Not a 
tooth was missing; not a scratch, or a sign 
of much usage was on one of them. AH 
signs pointed to a young woman between 
eighteen and twenty or twenty-five years 
of age. Portions of the coffins had been 
found in all three graves, and also por- 
tions of the winding sheets. 

Night falling before the diggers could 
investigate all that was desirable, the^ 
postponed further investigation until 
May 12. On that day the following were 
present in the cemetery: Dr. Wilfred G. 
Brown, Duxbury; Frederick B. Knapp, 



Duxbury; Logan Waller Page, Richmond. 
Va.; Frederick Stout, Aul)urn, N. Y.; 
Hosmer K. Arnold, Portland, Oregon; 
Hammond Braman, Cohasset, Mass.; Rev. 
E. J. V. Huiginn, Duxbury; Mrs. Knapp, 
Mies Ford, Miss Clara H. Sampson, Miss 
Jacobs, Duxbury, and Aliss Ellen L. 
Sampson, Newton, Mass. The seven 
gentlemen named opened a trench north of 
the three graves already opened, and 
found two skeletons, one of a boy between 
nine and twelve years of age, and one of a 
child seemingly between three or four and 
five or six years of age. The child's skele- 
ton, as one would naturally expect, was 
the most decomposed. From the state of 
the teeth in the boy's head and from the 
size of the bones one could form a close 
estimate of his age; the second growth of 
teeth was coming in, crushing out the 
first growth; several of the new teeth were 
in place, and in places the two rows of 
teeth were present, one growing up and 
crushing out the other. The hair, cropped 
short, was on the head. All the signs 
showed that it was a boy's skeleton. All 
these graves lie in a row, and are evident- 
ly the graves of members of one family. 



CHAPTER XV. 

[Living possession of the evidence from 
the graves, let us see how this evidence 
corresponds with the facts about the 
Standish family. 

From Standish's will we know that he 
was to be buried beside his daughter, 
Lora, and his daughter-in-law. Mar}'. 
From the same source we conclude that 
his son, John, died young. But we can 
prove that Charles and John died yoimg 
even apart from the will. In the lists of 
the freemen of the town, in the lists of 
those sixteen years of age made at various 
times, and in the lists of those admitted 
to the freedom of the town, there is no 
mention of the names of Charles and John 
Standish. The list of those who were 
sixteen years of age in 1643 contains the 
name of Alexander Standish. This list 
may be seen in volume eight, page 190, of 
the Plymouth Colony Records. Mr. Justin 
Winsor gives the list on page 92 of his 
History of Duxbury, but omits the name 
of Alexander Standish. We know that 
Charles and John Standish were born be- 
fore the 22d, May 1627, and this list of 
persons between sixteen and sixty years of 
age capable of bearing arms was drawn up 
in Augu.st 1643. If Charles and John 
were then alive and capable of bearing 
arms they would have been mentioned. 
It is probable that they were dead before 
this time. Their names are mentioned 
only once in the old records and that is in 
1627. These boys were alive in 1627 and 



26 

Very soon the Captain moved to Duxbury. 
All the probabilities are that these _ boys 
died in Duxbury, and were buried in the 
graveyard in Duxbury. It must be borne 
in mind that the burial place of these boys 
is not of direct importance, in the question 
about the Captain's grave. We are simply 
concerned to find an old man buried near 
two young women, and the traditions 
about the grave of Standish point out 
these graves. 

From the skeletons we see that the young 
women found in the traditional burying 
place were between eighteen and twenty- 
five years or so. Let us now examine the 
evidence about the ages of Lora Standish 
and Mary Dingley, the wife of Joslah 
Standish. Lora Standish was not born be- 
fore May 22d, 1637, or she would be men- 
tioned with the other children at that time. 
She died before her father in 1656, as he 
asked to be buried near her. At the outside 
then she could not have been twenty-nine 
years of age. Her father and mother were 
married after Aug. 1, 1623; three children 
were born before May 22d, 1627; Standish 
was in England for several months between 
these dates. After May, 1627, three chil- 
dren, Myles, Josiah, and Lora were born, 
and also a fourth, Charles. The skeleton of 
the young woman with the light colored 
hair, and the strikingly shaped head, would 
correspond with the age of Lora Standish. 
At to Mary Dingley, the wife of Josiah 
Standish, she must have died young. Jo- 
siah was born after 1627, and at his wife's 
death in 1654, or 1655, he could not have 
been more than twenty- eight years of age 
at the most. Likely he was not quite so old. 
His wife would very naturally be younger. 
She was the daughter of John Dingley, ad- 
mitted a freeman of Marshfield in 1644, but 
formerly of Lynn and Sandwich. She died 
in 1654, the year of her marriage. Others 
say she died on 1st July, 1655. She was 
buried in Duxbury near Lora Standish. 
Her age then could not have been far from 
twenty years. The skeleton found would 
correspond with her age. Portions of finger 
nails were found wrapped in the winding 
sheet. 

The Captain was about seventy-two 
years of age when he died. 

The ages of all the persons in question 
would bear out the tradition that the 
graves opened are those of Standish and 
his children. Before his own death two 
of his sons had died young, and his 
daughter, Lora, and his daughter-in-law, 
Mary. He had asked to be buried with 
his daughter and his daughter-in-law. He 
was buried between them. Tradition has 
always pointed out the place; the loca- 
tions of the homes of the first three minis- 
ters from 16:57 to 1700 were near the spot; 
the old roads all converged there; the 
farm boundaries all locate the church 



there from the beginning; the public land 
was there; the public stocks and the 
pound were near there; the foundations of 
the first two churches are there, the first 
one in the south-east corner of the old 
graveyard, and the second one on the 
eastern side of the old road that bounds 
the graveyard on the east. All these 
Dositive proofs show that in the first pub- 
lic graveyard Standish and his children 
were buried. In fact those who would 
bury him elsewhere, would bury him be- 
side the first church and nowhere else. 
We have found that he was buried beside 
the first church and nowhere else, and we 
have shown where the first church was. 
The notion that he was buried elsewhere 
is simply imaginary. 

Taking into account the few hundred 
people buried in that old cemetery, and 
that there would not be one chance out of 
many millions of finding such a combina- 
tion of graves as the above, exactly cor- 
responding to the first five deaths of the 
Standish family, it does not seem that 
there is any room for doubt. The grave- 
yard has not been used for over one hun- 
dred years. Taking all the evidence into 
account with the traditions, there is abso- 
lutely no room for doubt. 



CHAPTER XVI 

We now come to the objections made 
to the foregoing evidence. 

We have dealt with the objections about 
his religion, and about his having been 
secretly buried. 

One objector tells us that it cannot be 
shown that the graveyard where Standish 
was buried was in use before 1697 or 
thereabouts. The proof of this is that 
the oldest gravestone found is dated for 
that year. Even if we granted that there 
was no gravestone of earlier date than 
1697, this would simply prove that 
Jonathan Alden, whose grave it marked, 
died in 1697; it would not prove that the 
stone was placed there in 1697; it would 
be no proof at all of the exact age of the 
graveyard. The oldest tombstone in 
Marshfield, in fact in the Colony, is marked 
1651, but this will not prove that the 
grave -yard was not in use before that time. 
The oldest stone in Plymouth burying 
ground is dated 1681, but no one thinks 
of proving from this that the graveyard 
was not in use long before 1681. There 
is the very strongest and most positive 
evidence that the graveyard where Stan- 
dish lies buried is the first graveyard of 
the town, and remained in use until about 
1783. when the site of the church was 
changed to the site of tlie present Unita- 
rian church, or near that site; then the 
present graveyard was first used, the 



27 



graveyard following the church. It must 
not be forgotten that the first settlers were 
too busy at work on the new country, and 
iu defending their lives from all dangers, 
to be able to spend much time and money 
on graveyards and gravestones. Only the 
richer people were able to have tomb- 
stones, and these were mostly imported. 

Another objection made is that the 
stones marked the grave of Lora and not 
of Myles. The two graves are along side 
each other. It is most likely that Myles 
marked his only daughter's grave; she was 
likely his favorite child. Afterwards 
when he was buried beside her, it would 
have been easy for people to transfer the 
connection between these remarkable 
stones and Lora's grave to the grave of her 
famous father. Before the Captain's 
death people would have said that Lora's 
grave was marked by the stones; after her 
father's death they would said that the 
Captain's grave was just beside these 
stones, or his burial place was marked by 
them. The two graves are very close to- 
gether. The stones are heavy, and could 
not have been easily displaced. If the 
stones had been placed at the Captain's 
grave, you can only suppose that in all 
these years some cause pushed the stones 
a foot or two out of place. The stones 
when found exactly marked the grave of 
Lora Standish, the Captain's daughter. 

Another objection is that the length of 
the man's skeleton was so great as to prove 
that it could not be Myles Standish. A 
French traveler, this objection stales, is 
the only eye witness who has left us an 
account of the Captain's size, and he says 
the Captain was a small man ; therefore it 
is concluded, the Captain's skeleton could 
not measure five feet seven inches in the 
grave. In the first place, the Frenchman 
is not the only one who has left us an ac- 
count of the Captain's size; in the second 
place, even if the Captain were small, 
De Rassiere does not say he was a dwarf; 
thirdly, a man five feet seven inches would 
be a small man; but what is more to the 
point is, that when a human body disin- 
tegrates in the grave, the bones fall apart 
and are crushed apart by the decayed cof- 
fin lid and the crushing earth, so that the 
skeleton in the grave is generally longer 
than the living man would be. A disar- 
ticulated skeleton measuring five feet sev- 
en inches would be a good deal longer 
than the Captain in life. 

It has been cause for wonder with some 
that no jewelry was found in any of the 
graves. It is very unlikely that Captain 
Standish, a soldier of fortune before he 
came here, would have any great quanity 
of jewelrv. Even if he had, the simple 
and religious notions of the people would 
have been opposed to burying jewelry 
with the dead. It was the custom of the 



Pilgrims to encourage simplicity of life 
and dress at all times and their dead were 
buried reverently, but with simplicity. 
Absence of jewelry is what we should e.\ 
pect. 



CHAPTER XVII. 

Mrs. Jane G. Austin is tlie one wlio 
makes the greatest number of objections 
to our conclusions and to our proofs. It 
is necessary to consider her objections one 
by one, that all sides of this question iiiay 
be seen, and all the proofs and objections 
fully considered. 

Her objections will be found in her let- 
ters to the Boston Transcript of June ~, 
1891, and July 3, 1891, and in the Old 
Colony Memorial of Plymouth of June 
18, 1892. 

1. She says the five graves found are 
not of one family. 

Ans. This is assumed without a per- 
sonal examination of the graves, tlie skele- 
tons, and of the documentary and other 
proof on hand. Every candid observer 
admits that the graves are of one family. 

2. "As for the five graves lying in a 
row it proves positively nothing at all." 

Ans. As for the five graves, so far from 
proving nothing, they prove that an old 
man was buried between two young 
women, and that a boy and a child were 
buried in the same row. They prove that 
the skull of the man is vcn like the skull 
of the young woman on his right hand 
side, and iliat these skulls are very like 
the skull of one of the direct descendants 
of Standish, recently living in Duxbury; 
all these heads have a peculiar shajie or 
conformation. The graves were found 
with skeletons corresponding to the lirst 
five deaths in the Captain's fanuly, and with 
the skeletons bearing out the historical 
testimony as to age and sex, and also as to 
the positions of the graves of the old man 
and the two young women. These graves 
were found in what tradition and history 
point out as the first graveyard, and the 
two famous triangular pyramids of stone 
were marking the place. 

3. The two boys, Charles and John dieil 
of plague in Plymouth in 1032 3:1. There- 
fore they are buried in Plymouth. 

Ans. This is gratuitous assumption. 
Nobody can prove that the boys died in 
Plymouth, or died of the plague, or died 
at the same time. The evidence is op 
posed to all these assumptions. The 
graves deny that the bovs died at the s.ime 
time and we are justified in maintaining 
that the graves of the boy and of the chi d 
are those of Charles and John Standish, 
as long as we can prove that tlieir father 
and his daughter and daughtcrin law are 
buried iu the same place. The evidence 



28 



will prove that the Standish family was 
living in Duxbury during the plague and 
not in Plymouth. The plague was in the 
hot season but Standish then lived in Dux- 
bury. We have already quoted that docu- 
ment signed by him and others in April, 
1682, promising to return to Plymouth in 
the winter season. They must have been 
in Duxbury in the summer of 1632, and 
during each summer afterwards. In fact 
there is nothing to prove that the men 
who signed that document did return to 
Plymouth in the winter; the churches 
divided in 1682, and there are other signs 
that the document was never enforced. 
Even if Standish were in Plymouth when 
the plague broke out, would it not be 
most reasonable to suppose that he would 
at once remove his family to Duxbury V 
Were we to grant that the Standish boys 
died in Plymouth, which we do not admit, 
would not their father bring their bodies to 
be buried in Duxbury, where he intended to 
make his home for the remainder of his 
life? Mrs. Austin suggests that Standish 
would not have removed his children to 
Duxbury when they were sick of the 
plague. She writes: "But if Standish's 
two sons died of the sickness in 1633, it 
was highly improbable that their father 
carried them away from the vicinity of 
Dr. Fuller then in Plymouth and who was 
the only physician of the colony." Here 
Mrs. Austin assumes that the boys died 
in 1633, of the plague, in Plymouth, and 
were buried there. These are all fan- 
cies without one bit of evidence. Then 
she assumes that it had been proved, or 
suggested, that Standish removed the 
plague-stricken boys during their illness 
from the care of Dr. Fuller! No one ever 
thought of such a want of common sense 
in the Captain. Even if his children did 
live in Duxbury, the settlers in Duxbury 
would all have to call upon Dr. Fuller in 
their illness until they secured a physician 
nearer home. Everyone knows that Dr. 
Fuller did go to Marshfield, and to greater 
distances than Duxbury, to attend sick 
people. Mrs Austin, in her novels, which 
are supposed to be more or less historical, 
sends the doctors on longer journeys than 
that from Plymouth to Duxbury; by wa- 
ter that journey would be twice as short 
as by land. However it must be borne in 
mind that the graves of the boy and child 
are not of importance in locating the 
grave of the Captain from the evidence of 
his own will. 

4. Speaking of the Captain's will, Mrs. 
Austin says: "If he had also two sons in 
the same burial spot would not he have 
spoken of them as well as of his daughter- 
in-law? And if the two young women 
had been buried in such fashion as to leave 
a space for the father between would not 
he have alluded to such an arrangement?" 



Ans. The plain answer to both these 
questions is No. He would not have been 
so likely to mention the boys who died in 
youth, as his daughter-in-law. who died 
only a short time before himself. As he 
was not giving a history of the burial 
place of his family in his will, it is not 
likely that he would have mentioned that 
a burial place was left between the two 
graves for his own grave. In his will he 
plainly refers to the fact that he was to be 
buried near his daughter and daughter-in- 
law, in their well known burial place. He 
mentioned the place in which he wished to 
be buried, and in describing that place it 
was necessary to refer to his daughter and 
his daughter in law but not to the boys. 

5. "These five graves have no dated 
stones, no parish record, no valid tradi- 
tion." 

Ans. In the Plymouth graveyard the 
oldest dated stone is for 1681; this will 
not prove that certain graves of earlier 
date are not known. We have never 
heard of graves having a "parish record." 
There is no "parish record" of any grave 
in the country. 

That these graves have "no valid tra- 
dition" is not correct; the strongest possi- 
ble traditions are attached to these graves 
in that graveyard. To assume the con- 
trary is a simple begging of the question. 
In her second letter to the Transcript Mrs. 
Austin changes her language and says: 
"My saying that their graves had 'no 
dated stones' and the deaths no 'parish 
record,' did not mean as Mr. H. seems to 
believe, that in this they differed from 
other ascertained graves of the same day." 
Here she changes her language and attri- 
butes to me a belief I never held as to her 
meaning. No grave in the Colony had or 
has a parish record, in the sense of the 
term "parish record." 

6. She says: "I should suppose that 
any student of our earliest burying- 
grounds would have learned that burial 
lots are a modern invention. In the early 
days the ground belonged to the town, 
that is to say to the church, for the inter- 
ests were identical, and persons were bur- 
ied where the survivors pleased. Burying 
hill in Plymouth is the oldest and best 
instance of an ancient New England ceme- 
tery, and there one frequently finds the 
headstone of an alien intruded upon a 
family group, and 'those who know' as- 
sure us that the ground is full of nameless 
bones above which other bodies have been 
laid. So the 'burial lot' must be set aside 
as an anachronism." This is from the let- 
ter to the Transcript of June 2, 1891. In 
her letter to the same paper of July 3, 
18'J1, she says: "As for my statement 
that the phrase burial lots is an anachron- 
ism, as connected with the earliest bury- 
Ing-grounds of our country, I reassert it. 



29 



A burial place means a place allotted and 
divided off for the use of a purchaser or 
donee. This usage did not obtain in our 
early burying grounds and although fami- 
lies were naturally laid as near together as 
convenient, there were no rights of jtos- 
session given to any individual or family." 
Ans. In all this there is nothing to the 
purpose, because if we granted that fami- 
lies had no special places for burial in the 
graveyards, and if they were buried one 
here and one there, still in the case of 
Captain Standish we know that he was 
buried near his daughter and daughter-in- 
law. Mrs. Austin puts a private and 
strained meaning upon family "burial lot" 
which no one will admit. The "burial 
lot" does not in law or in common lan- 
guage mean exclusively a lot owned by 
purchase or by gift. There were places 
where families buried by themselves in all 
the old graveyards. Plymouth Burying 
Hill is itself a proof of this. Nor was the 
sanctity of family burial place, burial lot, 
or burial plot, or whatever you may call 
it, invaded except in very exceptional 
cases. The graveyard in Marshlield is 
proof of this; also the Granary graveyard 
in Boston, and all the old graveyards in 
the Colony. The graveyards of England, 
at the time of which we speak, show that 
family burial places were respected. Ply- 
month burying hill might be said to be 
rather a unique burying ground than "the 
best instance of an ancient New England 
cemetery." 

The people of New England respected, 
as English Christians have always done, 
the sacredness of the family burial place. 
As a rule families do not intrude on fami- 
lies. Here the graveyards were owned by 
the town, and the people had permission 
to bury their dead in certain parts of the 
graveyard. Fathers desired to be buried 
with their families, to have their families 
buried together, and as the fathers were 
the voters who controlled all these mat- 
ters, we may be sure they agreed to re- 
spect, as their forefathers had always 
done, the sacredness of the family bur- 
ial lots. 

7, Mrs. Austin says: "The three- 
corner stone theory took its rise in the 
summer of 1887." 

Ans. This is not so. Mrs. Austin then 
first heard of it; that is all. Mrs. Austin 
undoubtedly wrote what she believed to 
be correct when she gave her version of 
the Prior tradition, but her version so con- 
tradicts itself, is so impossible in itself, 
and so contradicts facts that there is little 
hesitation in rejecting it. For instance 
she says the grandfather of the last Ben- 
jamin Prior was the boy of ten years of 
age who witnessed the Captain's funeral. 
The last Benjamin was borH in 1775, and 
the boy who witnessed the funeral was 



born 1(540. These dates would make it 
highly imi>robable that it was the grand- 
father of the last Benj. Prior, who as a 
boy of ten years, witnessed the funeral of 
Captain Standish. Tlie Prior history con- 
tradicts it too; it was the gre"»tgrand- 
father who Siiw the Standish funeral. 
This we have already discussed. 



CHAPTER XVI H. 

8. In Mrs. Austin's version Mrs. Ruth 
Hall is made to visit Benjamin Prior athig 
request at the poor house. 

Ans. Mrs. Hall never visited Prior at 
the poor house, nor did he request her to 
do so. 

9. The lady who Informed Mrs. Austin 
of Dr. Wadsworth's testimony in the pres- 
ence of Mrs. Ruth Hall about the two re- 
markable stones, is said to have stated that 
she did not know where Dr. Wadsworth 
took his guests, whether to Harden Hill or 
to the old burying ground at Hall's Cor 
ner. 

Ans. The lady mentioned is not a wit- 
ness in the case. Her evidence Is of no value 
on this point. That she knew nothing of 
the precise place to which Dr. Wadsworth 
took his guests is of no more value as evi- 
dence than if we were to say that the 
Queen of England knows nothing of where 
Dr. Wadsworth took his guests. The facts 
remain about the two remarkable, pyramid- 
al stones, and that Mrs. Ruth Hall handed 
down her testimony about them, and that 
no such stones have been found elsewhere 
than in the old cemetery, and that all his- 
tory, and tradition, and evidence from the 
graves, support what we have said. 

10. Mrs. Austin confuses the history of 
the two stones. She gives four different ac- 
counts of them. In her letter to the Tran- 
script of June 2nd, she says: "Having 
heard the story I at once visited the grave, 
and at the first glance thought such very 
ordinary looking pieces of stone could not 
be those described as such unmistakable 
landmarks. Laying my hand upon one I 
found it very loose, and easily lifted It out 
of the earth, which it penetrated some five 
or six inches." In her second letter to the 
Transcript of July 3d, she says: "The ori- 
gin of this theory was that when the three- 
cornered stones (one of which, by the way, 
is four-sided)." In her letter to the Old Col- 
ony Memorial she calls them "two little 
triangular stones," marking the grave, as 
slie thinks, of "Alexander Standish." 
who died in 1703, or Josias Standish. In 
her "Standish of Standish" page 4U», she 
says that the grave of Captain Standish lav 
across the valley from the Captain's Hill, 
and Is "marked head and foot with a great 
three-cornered stone." 

Thus we see she calls them "two ordln- 



30 



ary looking pieces of stone." "two little 
triangular stones," "two great three-cor- 
nered stones," and finally says that one of 
them is a "four-sided stone." Then she 
puts them, (1) at Captain Standish's grave, 
(2) at Alexander's grave, and (3) at the 
grave of Josias Standish. Alexander died 
in 1702, and at one time she makes the 
Prior boy see his funeral, and another time 
the Captain's in 1656, at another time that 
of Josias who moved to Connecticut in 
1686, died, and was buried there. Again 
she makes tlie boy, tlie same boy, ten years 
of age in 16o6, and the same age in 1702, 
and the same age at the funeral of Josias, 
who was not buried in Duxbury at all. 

Speaking of the stones she says she mov- 
ed theeastern one, "easily lifting" it out of 
the ground which it penetrated but five or 
six inches. Mr. Melr.ar Brewster, who was 
employed by the Rural Society to put the 
old graveyard in order, distinctly told me 
that the stones were in the same position 
from the time he discovered them, before 
1887, until May, 1891. 

The weather marks on the stones, and 
the moss lines, etc., plainly showed how 
deep the stones were in the earth. The 
stone at the eastern end, or foot of the 
grave, measures two feet seven in direct 
altitude, and weighs seventy-nine pounds. 
Seventeen inches of its altitude were in the 
earth, and from the shape of the stone it 
would be impossible for the strongest man 
in Duxbury to easily lift the stone even 
with his two hands. The stone was in that 
position, Mr. Brewster says, before 1887, 
when Mrs. Austin first saw it. The stones 
were not removed at any time by those 
digging there. The diggers have told me 
so. The lateral altitudes of the faces of the 
stone at the foot of the grave were 17, 15, 
and 13 * inches. The bases of the trian- 
gular faces were 9, 9, and 7 i inches. 
These measurements were made before the 
stone was removed from the position it oc- 
cupied from the time Mr. Brewster discov- 
ered it until it was removed to be weighed. 

The other stone at the head of the grave 
weighs one hundred and nine pounds, and 
is thirty inches in direct altitude. It was 
buried in the ground to a depth of nearly 
eighteen inches. The lateral altitudes of the 
triangular faces 12 i, 13, and 11 finch- 
es; the bases of the same faces measured 8, 
6 J and 11 inches. All these measure- 
ments were taken before the stones were 
removed, and also after they had been taken 
up to be photo-graphed and weiglicd. 

All those who have seen the stones admit 
that for all purposes of description in a 
general letter on the evidence the stones 
would be rightly called "triangular pyra- 
mids." Mrs. Austin lierself having seen the 
stones so described them in her "Standish 
of Standish" and in lier lutters to tlie Old 
Colony Memorial of Plymouth, and to the 



Transcript. That she afterwards called one 
of them a "four-sided one" may be account- 
ed for by the fact that one of the edges of 
this seventy-nine pound stone, which she 
easily lifted, was broken off, or sliced off. 
This edge is thicker than the other edges, 
and you can see at once that it was sliced 
off for about eight or ten inches of its 
length, as the edge still remains on the 
lower part of the stone. We are speaking 
of the stones as they are visible, just as in 
describing the external appearance of a 
house or of a tree we would speak of what 
was above the earth. What Mrs. Austin 
at one time calls a fourth side would be 
more aptly described as a thick edge 
Those who are interested can see the stones 
for themselves. 

11. Mrs. Austin admits that the argu 
ments drawn from the public highways of 
the early town to locate the church are 
good from 1650. Standish was buried in 
1656. Therefore, even she should admit 
the possibility that he was buried at Hall's 
Corner graveyard. If the arguments 
from the roads, etc., are good from 1650, 
they ought to be good from 1637 when 
the roads were surveyed, especially as 
they were the only roads for a great many 
years. 

12. She says of the town or parish rec- 
ords that "all such records previous to 
1665 were destroyed by fire." 

This is not so. Many of the records of 
the town are to be found in the Old 
Colony Records, in the records of other 
towns at one time part of Duxbury, and 
in the present records of Duxbury. Some 
of the records were re-written after the 
fire had destroyed them. The records 
themselves witness this. 

13. She says that the most important 
of the first settlers, witli the exception oi 
John Alden, settled in the Nook besidt 
Captain Standish, and therefore the first 
church was built, not at Hall's Corner, 
but at Harden's Hill for the sake of con 
venience. 

Ans. Anyone who examines the grounc 
will at once see that a church on Harder 
Hill would be far more inaccessible anc 
inconvenient for Standish and all his sup 
posed neighbors than one at Hall's Corner 
Again, the most Important of the firs 
settlers did not all, Alden accepted, live ii 
the Nook and near the Captain. Th 
most important of the settlers, after Stan 
dish and Brewster, were Stephen Tracy 
Jonathan Brewster, Thomas Prince 
Christopher Wadsworth, William Basset 
Francis Sprague, the HowJands, South 
worths. Browns, Bumpuses, Soules 
Delanos, Pollards, Ililliers and others 
These men lived on towards Kingston 
along the eastern shore towards Powde 
Point, and around the mill at Mill Broot 
and towards Duck Hill in Marshfield 



31 

The notion, then, that the church was 
luiir Standish for the accommodation of 
luQiself and the chief settlers of the town 
is without foundation in fact. Every 
su( h argument would point to the place 
hrtween Hall's andBayley's Corners. 

14. Elder Brewster "was their minis- 
fir " for some years "though never or- 
dained." 

Ans. Elder Brewster was never the 
minister of the church In Duxbury, and 
ri( ver was called such by any historian. 
lie was not even minister in Plymouth 
liming the years when they had no min- 
ister. The most ever said of him in this 
matter is that he may have conducted 
. service at times or led in prayer. There 
is no proof that he was ever connected 
with the Duxbury church. All historians, 
including Mr. Justin Winsor, call Rev. 
Ralph Partridge the first minister of Dux- 
bury, Rev. John Holmes the second, and 
Rev. Ichabod Wiswall the third. 

1.1. "A little house, probably no more 
than a cabin, was built for purposes of 
worship, and surely this would be in the 
vicinity of the Captain's and Elder's 
homes." 

"The first church in Plymouth was 
built in 1648 and was replaced by another 
in 1683, a period of thirty-five years, and 
probably the first church edifice in the 
little settlement gathered about Captain's 
Hill was even shorter lived." 

" 'Constant tradition' places this church 
on Harden Hill just north of the Brewster 
farm, and I am inclined to consider this 
tradition as very likely to be an historical 
fact." ^ ^ 

Ans. Mrs. Austin", when reminded that 
in her "Standish of Standish" she buried 
Myles in the old graveyard near Hall's 
Corner, said she buried him there as a 
"picturesque possibility." In all this 
Mrs. Austin begs all her positions and 
proves nothing. No comment is neces- 
sary other than her own words in the 
Transcript of June 2, 1891: "One great 
stumbling block in the path of historical 
research is the proneness of the human 
mind to believe what it wants to believe, 
and to accept as proven that which is only 
tradition or fancy." 

16. The graves of the early settlers 
were likely to be hidden "especially af- 
ter the beginning of the Pequot war." 

Ans. Even if the graves were hidden, 
the men who buried Standish would know 
where they had buried him, and his 
daughter's grave was known, as we see 
from the Captain's will. What connec- 
tion was there between Standish's grave 
and the Pcciuot war which was ended 
nineteen years before the Captain died? 

17. Mrs. Austin says that perhaps the 
Captain was buried on Harden Hill, per- 
haps in the vicinity of his own home, but 



she feels "very sure not in the tlall's Cor- 
ner graveyard," and she hopes his grave 
may never be discovered. 

Ans. Her prepossession against the 
discovery of liis grave unfits her for 
forming a fair and just judgment, as 
her rejection of all evidence further 
shows. 

18. She says the conditions for the 
franchise in Duxbury were never enforced 
in the case of Standish. 

Ans. She says this in speaking of Stan- 
dish's religion, a matter of Irrelevance 
from her standpoint. I felt obliged to 
speak of his religion, because some said 
he was a Roman Catholic, and therefore 
not buried with the pilgrims. In the as- 
sumption she makes she would have Stan- 
dish, one of the founders of the town, de- 
manding from others conditions for the 
freedom of the town, whicli he would not 
and did not demand from himself. Stan- 
dish on this point was ruled by the towns- 
men, and they were not in the habit of 
making laws simply to set them aside. 

19. Mrs. Austin, speaking of the old 
burying-eround at Hall's Corner, calls it 
the "Second Burying Ground, "using capi- 
tal letters, and so as to insinuate to out- 
siders that it was known by that name. 
Again she says; "Now if in 1675 the 
Second Burying Ground was a new one as 
the Duxbury argument claims." 

Ans. As I am the one responsible for 
the "Duxbury Argument" I most em- 
phatically say that our argument always 
contended, and contends, that the old 
cemetery near Hall's Corner, called by 
Mrs. Austin the "Second Burying Ground" 
was the first burying ground, and is 
known in Duxbury and the records of 
Duxbury as the old cemetery, not as the 
"Second Burying Ground." 

20. Mrs, Austin cites some authorities 
in her letters to sustain her views. Those 
of them who can must answer for them- 
selves. As to me no man's authority, as 
merely his, is of any use in matters of his- 
tory. , , . ^ 

The only things of weight in history are 
evidence and applied common sense. The 
location of the grave of Myles Standish ia 
a matter of historic research. We have tried 
to follow out the lines of historic evidence. 
The public will be judge. In the treatnient 
of the question it has been deemed advis- 
able to examine all evidence brought 
against us. and to examine it exhaustively, 
so as to preclude the necessity of saying 
more. It has been my desire to so treat all 
traditions, proofs, and objections, that 
from my side this (juestion may be deemed 
closed. One of the authorities whom Mrs. 
Austin cites, and on whom she lays very 
great stress as to his importance, was so 
devoted a collector of Standish relics from 
the old Standish cellar that the young boys 



32 



of the time very often scattered in that 
place Standish relics for his benefit. Some 
of those boys, now old men, have told me 
with a chuckle, how they loved to play 
pranks on the venerable and guileless anti- 
quarian and how they enjoyed his delight 
in going over the same ground again and 
again and always with most remarkable 
success in finding modern Standish relics. 

It seems unnecessary to say more, but 
Mrs. Austin in her "Betty Alden" has 
thought it right to say about the burial 
place of Standish: — 

"In the absence of all proof in any such 
matter, tradition becomes important, and 
so far as I have been able to determine, the 
tradition that some of the earliest settlers 
were buried in the vicinity of a temporary 
meeting-house upon Harden Hill in Dux- 
bury is more reliable than the tradition 
that Standish was laid in an old burymg- 
ground at Hall's Corner, which, probably 
was not set aside as a burial place in 1G5G, 
the date of his death. That of Elder Brew- 
ster, concerning whose burial we have 
many particulars, is altogether unknown, 
except that it seems to have been upon 
Burying Hill. Perhaps that of Standish is 
there also, for when he says, "If I die in 
Duxbury I should like, etc., he may mean 
that if he dies in Duxbury he would fain 
be carried to Plymouth there to lie beside 
his daughters and his two little sons as 
well." 

In this attempt at an historical novel 
Mrs. Austin assumes all her history, and 
even contradicts herself, and misquotes 
historical documents. She assumes a meet- 
ing house on Harden Hill; she assumes 
that Standish was buried there; she as' 
sumes as likely that Brewster was buried 
in Plymouth; she says perhaps Standish is 
buried in Plymouth ; she assumes that his 
daughters are buried in Plymouth, and his 
two young sons. All these things she as- 
sumes as probable, or at least as possible. 
In her "Standish of Standish" she buries 
the Captain in Hall's Corner grave yard. 
She misquotes the Captain's will which 
reads: "And if I die att Duxborrow my 
body to be layed as neare as conveniently 
may bee to my two dear daughters, Lora 
Standish, my daughter, and Mary Standish, 
my daughter-in-law." This plainly tells 
whether his daughters were buried in 
Plymouth or not. The record of Nathaniel 
Morton (40 years secretary of the Colony), 
cited in one of the earlier chapters, states 
that Standish died in Duxburrow and was 
honorably buried in that town. Let the 
public judge of the value of Mrs. Austin's 
history. 

It hardly seems out of place to say that 
John Alden is undoubtedly buried in the 
same graveyard where Myles Standish lies. 
John Alden in his old age lived and died in 



the home of his son Jonathan. This son 
died in 1697, and his tombstone is the most 
perfect, as well as the oldest dated one of 
all the old tombstones in the old cemetery. 
Jonathan was without doubt buried beside 
his wife Abigail, who died August 17, 1725, 
and whose tombstone still stands in the old 
burying ground. The stone that marked 
Jonathan's grave is kept in one of the pri- 
vate houses in Duxbury. Now it seems al- 
most certain that Jonathan Alden was bur- 
ied near his father, who died according to 
some in September 1686, according to others 
in September 1687, and at the most only 
ten or eleven years before Jonathan died. 
John Alden, his wife Priscilla, and all the 
old settlers of the town lie buried in the old 
cemetery between Hall's and Bayley's Cor- 
ner's. This seems certain. 

Elder Brewster came to live in Duxbury 
and died here. Some say he is buried in 
Plymouth but there is no proof of this. 
The only argument to favor such a sup- 
position is that derived from the word "re- 
turned" where it is said in the old docu- 
ment that after Brewster's funeral his sons 
"returned" with the governor of the Col- 
ony to the governor's home. From this the 
conclusion is drawn : therefore Elder Brew- 
ster was buried in Plymouth because his 
sons and the governor after the funeral re- 
turned to the governor's house. There is no 
force in such a way of arguing. Besides, 
this argument forgets that the governor at 
that time, in 1644, had a home in Kingston, 
and that as the Elder died on April the 
16th, it is likely Governor Bradford was at 
that time in his Kingston home. It would 
have been as appropriate to say that the 
two sons of Brewster, Love and Jonathan, 
together with Mr. Prence, Mr. Winslow, 
Captain Myles Standish, and Governor 
Bradford "returned" to the governor's 
house at Kingston as to his house in Ply- 
mouth .Jonathan Brewster at the time of his 
father's death lived in New London, Con- 
necticut. He had sold his Duxbury home 
to Comfort Starr in 1638, and we have seen 
that Starr afterwards sold it to Christopher 
Wadsworth. 

While searching in the old graveyard 
near Hall's Comer I discovered a grave 
which had been paved with ordinary stones. 
The stones around the edges of the siirface 
of the grave were placed on edge, and the 
inner portion paved with large and small 
stones. The grave had sunk so that the 
stones once on the surface were several 
inches under ground, and the roots of a 
cherry tree, long since cut down, had 
reached out ten or twelve feet and inter- 
netted themselves with the stones. The 
roots were quite large. All indications show 
that the grave is a very old one, one of the 
oldest in the graveyard. It lies between 
tlie Standish graves and the foundation of 
the first church. In so far as I can learn the 



3a 



grave is iinifiue iu the old graveyards of 
Pl\ iiioiitli cokiiiy. 

Everything being taken into aeeount it 
is easily seen that the grave is that of one 
of the most prominent of the early settlers 
of the town, and is prohalily that of Elder 
IJrewster, or of the Mdv. Italph Partridge, 
the tlrbt minister, who died in 1G58. 



CtlAPTER XIX. 

It will be of interest to cite one deed in 
reference to the relative situation of the 
meeting-house in the old times. 

On pages 97. 98, etc., in the Book A of 
the Du.vbury Records, the following rec- 
ords are found: 

"We, the subscribers, selectmen of the 
town of Duxburough, have settled the 
bounds of several highways within said 
town as followeth, viz: Inprimis we be- 
gan in the Captain's Nook at the fence, 
which is the partition between the farms 
of Miles Standish and, Thomas Delano, 
Junr, near a red oak tree marked a little 
within the said Standish's land, thence 
running near north to two rocks about 
half a foot assunder near the range between 
Dea. Brewster and the said Delano thence 
on a straight line to the southerly corner 
of the fre>;b meadow lot of Benjamin 
Bartlett Junr, thence to the northwest 
corner of the said meadow lot, thence as 
the way now goes to the fence standing 
about fifteen feet to westward of the big- 
gest barn on the farm of Samuel Bartlit, 
Deed., thence straight to a heap of stones 
on a rising spot or knoll of land on the 
eastward side of the path that leads out of 
said nook, thence straight to a heap of 
stones nigh the corner of Israel Silvester's 
fence and the way now goeth up out of 
the nook opposite against a ditch or place 
L'ldled away by the rain down into Mrs. 
Wiswall's land, thence up to another stone 
pitched in the ground in sd Silvester's 
fence where he turns down to his house 
thence still upwards on a straight line to 
the south-westerly corner post of_ sd Sil- 
vester's leantoo adjoining to his barn 
thence on a straight line 1o a stone in his 
fence, viz still upward straight from the 
last mentioned stone still upward as sd 
Silvester's fence now goes till it comes to 
the land of Christopher Wadsworth, 
thence to a stone pitched in the ground 
which is the southeast corner V)etween the 
land of Christopher Wadsworth and Ben- 
jamin P- terson, thence on a straight line 
to the upward corner of the land of Chris- 
topher Wadsworth, viz., that corner of his 
land which is a little to the southward of 
the meeting-house." 

This highway was laid out 26 March, 
1715, by Edward Southworth, John 
Simons, and John Paitrldge, selectmen. 



Several other highways were laid out in 
different parts of the town l)y the same 
men, and all the highways are spoken of 
with reference to the meeling-liouse. The 
Vidue of the a'jove record, and of all these 
records, is to show that the meeting-house 
of 171.") could not have been at Harden 
Mill nor could it have been at Mrs. Thomas 
Chandler's. We know where it was, but 
even had we not the very clear records we 
hive as to its site, we could determine it 
from these records of the highways. But 
the chtiirJt, the first churcli. (nhtit th/wn in 
1707, and nolo to Jkiijtuiiiii Prior, irttn irith- 
in three or four roda of the one stamUiut in 
1715. 

Many other records might be added but 
it is not necessary for our juirpose and we 
shall cfintcnt ourselves with giving a copy 
of the Captain's will. 

"The last will and testament of Capt. 
Myles Standish Gent, exhibited before the 
court held at Plymouth, the 4th of Maj' 
1657, on the oath of Capt. James Cud- 
worth and ordered to be registered as fol- 
loweth : 

Given under my hand this March the 
7th, 1655. Witnesseth these presents tiiat 
I, Myles Standish Senr., of Du.xburrow 
being in pfect memory yett deseased in 
my t)ody, and knowing the fraile estate of 
man ia his best estate, I do make this to 
bee my last will and testament in manner 
and form following: 

1. My will is that out of my whole 
estate my funerall charges to be taken (tut 
and my body to be buried in decent maner 
and if I die att Duxburrow my body to 
be layed as neare as convenient!}- may bfc 
to my two dear daughters, Lora Standish. 
my daughter, and Mary Standish, my 
da'ugliter-inlaw. 

2." My will is that out of the remaining 
pte of my whole estate tliat all my ju.st 
and lawful debts which I now owe or 
at the day of my death may owe bee paie<i. 

'i. Out of what remain according to tlie 
order of this Goverment: my will is that 
my dear and loveing wife, liarbara Stan- 
dish shall have the third pte. 

4. I have given to my son, .losias Stan- 
dish upon his marriage one yoimg horse, 
live sheep, and two helfors which I must 
upon that contract of marriage make forty 
pounds yett not knowing wliether the es- 
tate will bear it att present; my will is 
that the lesedue remaine in the whole 
stocke and that every one of my four 
sons, v'z , Allexander Standlsii Myles 
Standi." . Josias Standish and Charles 
Standisii may have forty pounds appeec 
if not that they may have proportionable 
to ye remaining pte bee it more or less. 

5. My will is that my eldest son, Allex- 
ander shall have a double share in land. 

6. My will is that so long as they live 



L..rc 



M 



single that the whole be in pteaership be- 
twixt them. 

7. I doe ordaine and make my dearly 
beloved wife Barbara Standish Alexander 
Standish Myles Standish and Josiali titan- 
dish joint Executors of this my last will 
and testament. 

8. I doe by this my will make and ap 
point my loveing frinds Mr. Timothy 
llatherly and Capt. James Cudworth, su- 
pervissors of this my last will and that they 
will be pleased to doe the office of Chris- 
tian love to be healpful to my poor wife 
and children by theire Christian counsell 
and advisse and if any difference should 
arise which I hope will not, my will is 
that my said supervissors shall determine 
the same, and that they shall see that my 
poor wife shall have as comfortable main- 
tenance as my poor state will beare the 
whole time of her life which if you my 
loveing frinds please to doe though neither 
they nor I shall be able to recompenc T 
doe not doubt but the Lord will. 

By me Myles Standish further my will 
is that Marcye Robinson whom I tenderly 
love for her grandfathers sacke shall have 
three pounds in something to goe forward 
for her two years after my decease which 
my will is my overseers shall see per- 
formed. 

Furtlier my will is that my servant 
John Irish Junr. have forty shillings more 
than his covenant which will appeer upon 
the Towne Book alwaies provided that he 
continew till the time he covenanted bee 
expired in the service of 7ny Executors or 
of any of them with their joint concert. 
By mee 
Myles Standish. 

March 7, 1655. 

9. I give unto my son and heire 
aparent Allexander Standish all mv lands 
as heire apparrent by lawful decent 
in Ormstick, Borsconge. Wrightington, 
Maudsley, Newburrow Crawston and in 
the Isle of Man and given to mee as right 
heire by lawful decent but surruptuously 
detained from mee my great Grandfather 
being a 2cond or younger brother from 
the house of Standish of Standish. 

by mee 
Myles Standish. 
March 7 1655. 
Witnessed by mee James Cudworth.'- 

When speaking of the five graves opened 
in the old cemetery we conjectured, and 
are justified in so doing, that the graves 
of the boy and child are the graves of 
Charles and John Standish, two of the 
Captain's sons who died young. We 
know that these sons were born before 
May 22(1, 1627, for their names are given 
in the lists when the cattle were divided. 
The names are given in the order, Charles, 
Alexander, John; the name John is un- 



derscored. It would seem as if Charles 
were the eldest son. Now in all the lists 
of tiiosc Capable of bearing arms, of free- 
man of the Colony or any of its towns, of 
those sixteen years of age and upwards at 
any time, the names of Charles and John 
Standish aie not mentioned. In the list 
for August 1648 of those sixteen years of 
age and capable of bearing arms neither 
of these boys is mentioned, and both must 
have been at least sixteen years of age at 
that time. The name of Alexander Stan- 
dish is given in that list for 1G43, though 
his name is ommited in the list given in 
Mr. Justin Winsor's History of Duxbury. 

From these facts we would conclude 
that the sons, Charles and John, men- 
tioned in the list of 1627, died young, be- 
fore they were sixteen years of age. Or 
it might be said that they had left the 
country, or were physically incapable of 
bearing arms at sixteen years of age, or 
were iucapa'ble of being freemen of the 
Colony hatl they lived to grow up, or for 
some mysterious reason were excluded 
from the lists of soldiers, freemen, land- 
holders, etc. The most reascmable sup- 
position is that they died young. The 
graves of the boy and child found may 
have been theirs, and in all likelihood are 
theirs, but whether or not, this would not 
affect the arguments to prove that tlie 
graves of the man and of the two young 
women are those of 'Captain Myles Stand- 
ish, his daughter, Lora, and his daughter- 
in-law, Mary Dingley Standish. 

But the question arises, if Charles Stan- 
dish died before his father, how does his 
fatlier's will speak "everj' one of my four 
sons viz Alexander Standish Myles Stan- 
dish Josias Standish and Charles Stan- 
dish'"? The answer is plain. In the list 
of 1627 Charles is mentioned first, as if he 
were the eldest sun. In the will he is 
mentioned hist, as if he was the youngest 
son, and Alexjmder is culled the eldest 
son. Had the Charles mentioned in the 
will been the eldest son, lie would have 
received the double portion of land, and 
he would have been heir to the English 
estates, even if we suppose that he was a 
sick man, or of unsoimd mind. But the 
Charles mentioned in the will, although 
one of the four sons, receives onl}'- as the 
j'ouuger sons receive, and he is not men- 
tioned as an executor, although his three 
brothers, Alexander, Myles and Josias, are 
mentioned with their mother as joint exe- 
cutors of the will. This fact, of his not 
being an executor, would prove that he 
was not of age, or that he was of unsound 
mind, or thai he was absent from the coun- 
try without any hope of his immedi- 
ate return. The first supposition tliat 
he was not of age is the most probable 
— taking all the circumstances into ac- 
count, and remembering the fact that 



85 



these old people were very exact about 
the law of primogeniture. It seems very 
evident that Standish, who was a stickler 
tor hereditary rights, would have taken 
care to have the names of his children giv- 
en in the order of age both in the list of 
1627 and in the will. From all which we 
conclude that he had two sons named 
Charles, that one of them died young, and 
that the other, born the last of his sons, is 
the one mentioned in the will. It might 
be suggested that the Charles Standish 
mentioned in the first list of 1627, and the 
one in the will is the same person, and 
that for some private reason of displeas- 
ure or other cause — the Captain refused 
to make him an executor. This is against 
all the probabilities, and the cause of dis- 
pleasure is opposed to the fatherly and 
Christian spirit revealed in the will. Be- 
sides it would be opposed to the law of 
primogeniture for the Captain to appoint 
a younger son as heir to hereditary estates 
that were entailed on the eldest son. Of 
the supposition that there was only one 
Charles and that he was weak-minded — 
this supposition is against all the proba- 
bilities, and if he were weak-minded, it is 



very likely that the solicitous father would 
have made some special reference to him 
in the will. The order of the names in 
the list of 1627, Charles, Alexander. John, 
and the order in tbe will, where Charles is 
last of the four sons, with all the circum- 
stances taken into consideration, would 
seem to indicate that one sijn, Charles, 
the first born of his children, died before 
the will was made, and that another 
Charles, the youngest of all his sons, was 
alive when the will was made. 

It is to be hoped that descendants of the 
founders of Duxbury will .see that the 
graveyard where lie their ancestors will be 
put in decent order and kept in a respecta- 
ble condition. Such neglect of the sacred 
dust of the dead is a lesson to future gen- 
erations to be likewise careless, and most 
of us cling to the hope that our last rest- 
ing places will be at least decently kept 
by those who come after us. Else what 
is the good of graveyards ? 

TUE END. 

Note. By an act of the General Court 
on the 7th of June, 1687, Duxbury became 
a seperate town. 



cUZ 



Pfi Ittl 







"^0^ 












O, * O N O 




; >°-i.^ -.1 









-^^^^^ 











; '^ 0^ 









"^0^ 















o « o - ,^^0'' ^^ 




0^ ^.t... "^^ ,4> 



1^ . X • 





"' '^ ^^^^^\ \../ .^»i^^ ^^..^^ 




-^s.^^ 











W^' 



^Ao^ 




'bV'' 








c° . 



^^ 















--. '••* ^^ 




o ^* 

» V 









^^-^^^ 










*^^ BOBBSBROS.'' ■ ° ' ^0 

^ LIBRARY BINDINO 

ST. AUGUSTINE V^^ - 

;*. "": ^^y FLA. '^ 












